• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Win up-date uses so much Ram my computer becomes un-responsive

L

leoliver

Flightless Bird
I have never had any problems with Windows Automatic up-dates before , but in
the last month, the auto up-date process has suddenly started eating so much
of my RAM that my computer becomes non-responsive. I didn't know what was
causing the memory usage problem at 1st , but when I disabled Windows
Automatic up-date the problem stopped.
Windows Auto up-date would start to eat up memory when I brought my computer
out of Standby or after a system re-start. Does anyone have any ideas why
Windows Auto up-date would suddenly start to eat up all of my memory ?
My system is a Win XP Pro SP3 computer .
Thanks.
--
your friend,
Larry
 
M

MowGreen

Flightless Bird
leoliver wrote:
> I have never had any problems with Windows Automatic up-dates before , but in
> the last month, the auto up-date process has suddenly started eating so much
> of my RAM that my computer becomes non-responsive. I didn't know what was
> causing the memory usage problem at 1st , but when I disabled Windows
> Automatic up-date the problem stopped.
> Windows Auto up-date would start to eat up memory when I brought my computer
> out of Standby or after a system re-start. Does anyone have any ideas why
> Windows Auto up-date would suddenly start to eat up all of my memory ?
> My system is a Win XP Pro SP3 computer .
> Thanks.



Larry,

1.a. How much RAM is installed? *Right* click My Computer either on the
Desktop or Start Menu, choose Properties.
The installed RAM is listed under 'Computer:'

b. What is the installed antivirus/security suite and is a 3rd party
firewall being used ?

2. Has the system been opted into Microsoft Update ? Open the Start Menu
and see if Microsoft Update is listed. If you don't see it at first,
click (All) Programs. If the system has been opted into MU it will show
at the top of the list.

3. Is Office or any Office components (Word, Excel or Powerpoint Viewer)
installed ?

4. Using Windows Explorer ( Start> Programs >Accessories>
Windows Explorer) please check
Windows\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore\DataStore.edb. <-- this file
*Right* click it, choose Properties. What is the file's Size ?

Also, check to see what the total Size is of the contents of
Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download.
When you navigate to the Download subfolder click Edit on the Menu bar,
choose Select All. Now click File on the Menu bar and choose Properties.
What is the Size reported ?


MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
 
S

Spamlet

Flightless Bird
"MowGreen" <mowgreen@nowandzen.com> wrote in message
news:i4eqc0$oe8$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> leoliver wrote:
>> I have never had any problems with Windows Automatic up-dates before ,
>> but in
>> the last month, the auto up-date process has suddenly started eating so
>> much
>> of my RAM that my computer becomes non-responsive. I didn't know what was
>> causing the memory usage problem at 1st , but when I disabled Windows
>> Automatic up-date the problem stopped.
>> Windows Auto up-date would start to eat up memory when I brought my
>> computer
>> out of Standby or after a system re-start. Does anyone have any ideas why
>> Windows Auto up-date would suddenly start to eat up all of my memory ?
>> My system is a Win XP Pro SP3 computer .
>> Thanks.

>
>
> Larry,
>
> 1.a. How much RAM is installed? *Right* click My Computer either on the
> Desktop or Start Menu, choose Properties.
> The installed RAM is listed under 'Computer:'
>
> b. What is the installed antivirus/security suite and is a 3rd party
> firewall being used ?
>
> 2. Has the system been opted into Microsoft Update ? Open the Start Menu
> and see if Microsoft Update is listed. If you don't see it at first, click
> (All) Programs. If the system has been opted into MU it will show at the
> top of the list.
>
> 3. Is Office or any Office components (Word, Excel or Powerpoint Viewer)
> installed ?
>
> 4. Using Windows Explorer ( Start> Programs >Accessories>
> Windows Explorer) please check
> Windows\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore\DataStore.edb. <-- this file
> *Right* click it, choose Properties. What is the file's Size ?
>
> Also, check to see what the total Size is of the contents of
> Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download.
> When you navigate to the Download subfolder click Edit on the Menu bar,
> choose Select All. Now click File on the Menu bar and choose Properties.
> What is the Size reported ?
>
>
> MowGreen


And the answers are supposed to be?
(Mine is slow too.)

S
 
M

MowGreen

Flightless Bird
Spamlet wrote:
> And the answers are supposed to be?
> (Mine is slow too.)
>
> S
>



There's a known issue when an XP system with 512MB of RAM or less is
opted in to Microsoft Update. When Automatic Updates kicks in on boot
there have been numerous posts about system's becoming extremely slow,
totally unresponsive, or even locking up.
The only *temporary* workaround is to opt out of Microsoft Update.
If the mother board allows, a permanent fix appears to be to increase
the RAM to at least 756 MB.
Even then, one poster claimed there was 1 GB of RAM on his XP system but
it still experienced the same issue unless opted out of MU. That may be
a system cache or CPU issue, but so far we haven't determined where his
system's issue lies.

wuaudt.exe is really bogging down my computer
http://social.answers.microsoft.com.../thread/ef18ff87-db7f-4705-8105-33dcf9a9a03b/

Automatic updates memory hog on xp
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/7f401392-268c-4840-a458-8b063fbda084

wuauclt and related svchost are suddenly slowing down my computer? What
happened?
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/5c7d9f06-44bf-4c25-8119-3e9259aa7077



MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
 
S

Spamlet

Flightless Bird
"Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]" <.@.> wrote in message
news:aloq66hfg2mot5ft6bo6p4mhtb0r9a1hm7@4ax.com...
> >There's a known issue when an XP system with 512MB of RAM or less is
>>opted in to Microsoft Update. When Automatic Updates kicks in on boot
>>there have been numerous posts about system's becoming extremely slow,
>>totally unresponsive, or even locking up.
>>The only *temporary* workaround is to opt out of Microsoft Update.
>>If the mother board allows, a permanent fix appears to be to increase
>>the RAM to at least 756 MB.
>>Even then, one poster claimed there was 1 GB of RAM on his XP system but
>>it still experienced the same issue unless opted out of MU. That may be
>>a system cache or CPU issue, but so far we haven't determined where his
>>system's issue lies.

>
> This is news to me. I've never heard of this known issue. Where's the
> supporting evidence? I've ran windows update on a laptop recently with
> 128MB RAM. It took a LOOOOOOONG time but it did not fail. If I had to
> guess, the OP might not have the svchost.exe update that is a known
> fix for this issue. OP may also just need the Windows Update Agent 3.
> That usually fixes issues for most people.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]


Ah, well this old laptop only has 256 but is still on Windows Update,
whereas the XPPro pc has 2Gig and is slow on MS Update.

I expect I already have it, but what is this svchost update you mention, and
how does one tell which version of the update agent one has?

Cheers,
S
 
M

MowGreen

Flightless Bird
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
>> There's a known issue when an XP system with 512MB of RAM or less is
>> opted in to Microsoft Update. When Automatic Updates kicks in on boot
>> there have been numerous posts about system's becoming extremely slow,
>> totally unresponsive, or even locking up.
>> The only *temporary* workaround is to opt out of Microsoft Update.
>> If the mother board allows, a permanent fix appears to be to increase
>> the RAM to at least 756 MB.
>> Even then, one poster claimed there was 1 GB of RAM on his XP system but
>> it still experienced the same issue unless opted out of MU. That may be
>> a system cache or CPU issue, but so far we haven't determined where his
>> system's issue lies.

>
> This is news to me. I've never heard of this known issue. Where's the
> supporting evidence? I've ran windows update on a laptop recently with
> 128MB RAM. It took a LOOOOOOONG time but it did not fail. If I had to
> guess, the OP might not have the svchost.exe update that is a known
> fix for this issue. OP may also just need the Windows Update Agent 3.
> That usually fixes issues for most people.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]



It's not an issue with WU, rather, with MU. Affected XP systems all have
the latest Version of the WUA.
All steps to resolve the issue from pertinent MSKB articles were applied
and they were useless.

Here's the I/O Read bytes from a client's affected system on boot with
the system opted in to MU after a few minutes and before the detection
scanned was done -

wuauclt.exe 374,738,108
svchost.exe 5,193,836

From the same system after the system was opted out of MU and back to WU -

On boot -

wuauclt.exe 3,873,980
svchost.exe 4,095,918

After the check for updates on WU was finished -

wuauclt.exe 21,085,372
svchost.exe 5,080,723

The discrepancy between the wuauclt.exe I/O Read bytes is quite substantial.

A few of us are helping someone from MS document it. If you can stand
the new forums -


http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/f8aec5e9-2f04-44c3-9e67-8f46a38b8d37

http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/7f401392-268c-4840-a458-8b063fbda084

http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/5c7d9f06-44bf-4c25-8119-3e9259aa7077

http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/ef18ff87-db7f-4705-8105-33dcf9a9a03b

http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/c41d2ef2-b755-41ec-8924-8ce618f3e939


http://social.answers.microsoft.com...e/thread/2e9bce71-788f-4f8a-bfed-bb713a300922




MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
 
S

Spamlet

Flightless Bird
"Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]" <.@.> wrote in message
news:cc6r66t8cv92cocfne5lo8s08u9e3ojljb@4ax.com...
> >"Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]" <.@.> wrote in message
>>news:aloq66hfg2mot5ft6bo6p4mhtb0r9a1hm7@4ax.com...
>>> >There's a known issue when an XP system with 512MB of RAM or less is
>>>>opted in to Microsoft Update. When Automatic Updates kicks in on boot
>>>>there have been numerous posts about system's becoming extremely slow,
>>>>totally unresponsive, or even locking up.
>>>>The only *temporary* workaround is to opt out of Microsoft Update.
>>>>If the mother board allows, a permanent fix appears to be to increase
>>>>the RAM to at least 756 MB.
>>>>Even then, one poster claimed there was 1 GB of RAM on his XP system but
>>>>it still experienced the same issue unless opted out of MU. That may be
>>>>a system cache or CPU issue, but so far we haven't determined where his
>>>>system's issue lies.
>>>
>>> This is news to me. I've never heard of this known issue. Where's the
>>> supporting evidence? I've ran windows update on a laptop recently with
>>> 128MB RAM. It took a LOOOOOOONG time but it did not fail. If I had to
>>> guess, the OP might not have the svchost.exe update that is a known
>>> fix for this issue. OP may also just need the Windows Update Agent 3.
>>> That usually fixes issues for most people.
>>>
>>> - Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]

>>
>>Ah, well this old laptop only has 256 but is still on Windows Update,
>>whereas the XPPro pc has 2Gig and is slow on MS Update.
>>
>>I expect I already have it, but what is this svchost update you mention,
>>and
>>how does one tell which version of the update agent one has?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>S

>
> Search your system32 folder for it. Right-click and do a properties on
> it. You'll be able to get the build number from there. The exact
> svchost update I don't remember but if I remember it was from 2008.
> What I do is install the patch that has the most current version of
> svchost.exe which is from KB897571. On the surface it would seem it
> doesn't carry it but trust me it installs svchost.exe build
> 5.1.2600.5689. Grab that and give it a try.
>
> Additionally, ensure you're running Windows Installer v4.5:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942288
> That's one other thing I forgot to mention that helps with these
> oddball issues sometimes.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]


Thanks for the info:

I do have 942288, but not 897571.

The svchost.exe in system32 says date modified 14/04/2008, and the
properties say it is 5.1.2600.5512 (xpsp.080413-2111).
But hovering over the file in system 32 it says the date is 18/08/2001, but
hovering over it in the service pack files it says 14/08/2004.

So you takes your pick as to what year my one is from!

Looking at MS for KB897571 I find it wants me to go to an archive site which
it will not let me enter with Firefox, and IE8 has decided to go into its
infuriating 'tab that for ever says 'connecting,,, '' mode (that even
though I have it on 'About Blank') which was what made me opt for Firefox in
the first place... Grrr.

Time for bed I think!

Cheers,
S
 
M

MowGreen

Flightless Bird
Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote:
> To get the Hotfix, you need to go here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=897571&kbln=en-us


http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897571
The Hotfix states it Applies to WS2K3 and Microsoft COM+ 1.5.
Additionally, the Prerequisites state

" To resolve this problem, you must have Windows Server 2003
Post-Service Pack 1 COM+ 1.5 Hotfix Rollup Package 6 installed on the
computer in addition to the hotfix that is mentioned in this article. "

The Installation information section states -

" 1. Install Windows Server 2003 Post-Service Pack 1 COM+ 1.5 Hotfix
Rollup Package 6 and the hotfix that is mentioned in this article. "

And then goes on to give instructions on creating a reg file that sets
the port number using Dcomcnfg.exe.

So, how does this apply to Windows XP ?
I suspect you may be onto something here as affected XP systems are
showing *numerous* WMI result code entries in their WU.logs -

2010-08-19 13:59:06:723 1772 580 Agent WARNING: Failed to evaluate
Installable rule, updateId = {27A4DEE7-284F-43BE-B1F3-644B1DCBDBEA}.100,
hr = 8004100E

8004100E WBEM_E_INVALID_NAMESPACE This error message means that the
namespace specified cannot be located.
Source - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/281888


MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
 
M

MowGreen

Flightless Bird
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
> Do you always believe what you read? If you don't believe me, go grab
> the hotfix and try to install it yourself. Report back to me what file
> it updates.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]



What I read in MSKBs ... surely you're jesting. My XP system is not
experiencing any issues with MU because it has 3 GB of RAM so I'm not
applying any Hotfix to it.

We just received a reply from someone at MS -

" We have gotten reports from multiple sources and consider this to be a
live service issue and we are investigating it as a Pri 1. "


Why are you being so contentious about this, Thee Chicago Wolf ?
I'm not doubting your veracity and as I stated previously, you may be
onto something here with what may be a WMI issue.


MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
 
L

leoliver

Flightless Bird
--
your friend,
Larry


"MowGreen" wrote:

> Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote:
> > To get the Hotfix, you need to go here:
> > http://support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=897571&kbln=en-us

>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897571
> The Hotfix states it Applies to WS2K3 and Microsoft COM+ 1.5.
> Additionally, the Prerequisites state
>
> " To resolve this problem, you must have Windows Server 2003
> Post-Service Pack 1 COM+ 1.5 Hotfix Rollup Package 6 installed on the
> computer in addition to the hotfix that is mentioned in this article. "
>
> The Installation information section states -
>
> " 1. Install Windows Server 2003 Post-Service Pack 1 COM+ 1.5 Hotfix
> Rollup Package 6 and the hotfix that is mentioned in this article. "
>
> And then goes on to give instructions on creating a reg file that sets
> the port number using Dcomcnfg.exe.
>
> So, how does this apply to Windows XP ?
> I suspect you may be onto something here as affected XP systems are
> showing *numerous* WMI result code entries in their WU.logs -
>
> 2010-08-19 13:59:06:723 1772 580 Agent WARNING: Failed to evaluate
> Installable rule, updateId = {27A4DEE7-284F-43BE-B1F3-644B1DCBDBEA}.100,
> hr = 8004100E
>
> 8004100E WBEM_E_INVALID_NAMESPACE This error message means that the
> namespace specified cannot be located.
> Source - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/281888
>
>
> MowGreen
> ================
> *-343-* FDNY
> Never Forgotten
> ================
>
> "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
> .
> Thanks for your reply ,I'll read all of the info over well before proceeding.

I have also been receiving this error message :

"Event Type: Error
Event Source: crypt32
Event Category: None
Event ID: 8
Date: 8/20/2010
Time: 9:47:02 AM
User: N/A
Computer: LEOLIVER
Description:
Failed auto update retrieval of third-party root list sequence number from:

<http://www.download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/trustedr/en/authrootseq.txt> with error: This operation

returned because the timeout period expired.


For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp. "
 
M

MowGreen

Flightless Bird
leoliver wrote:
>> Thanks for your reply ,I'll read all of the info over well before proceeding.

> I have also been receiving this error message :
>
> "Event Type: Error
> Event Source: crypt32
> Event Category: None
> Event ID: 8
> Date: 8/20/2010
> Time: 9:47:02 AM
> User: N/A
> Computer: LEOLIVER
> Description:
> Failed auto update retrieval of third-party root list sequence number from:
>
> <http://www.download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/trustedr/en/authrootseq.txt> with error: This operation
>
> returned because the timeout period expired.
>
>
> For more information, see Help and Support Center at
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp. "
>



The above error is a certificates download error that may be related to
the non-responsive system issue caused by the system being opted in to
Microsoft Update, leoliver. The system appears to be too busy and the
time period specified for the download of the cert expires.

Microsoft is well aware of the issue now and is giving it high priority.
For a temporary workaround, suggest you opt the system out of Microsoft
Update (MU) and back to Windows Update (WU).
Open Internet Explorer, click Tools > Windows Update
That will land IE on the MU site.
Once MU loads, click the Change settings link in the left frame.
Scroll down towards the bottom of the right frame when it loads and opt
the system out of MU.

When the issue with MU is resolved by MS I'll post back to *this*
thread. The certificate should download from WU now. Key word being
*should* but ... there also appears to be an issue with a recently
released certificate that causes an Application event entry whose source
is CAPI2 with an EventID of 4107 that states

" Failed extract of third-party root list from auto update cab at:
<http://www.download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/trustedr/en/authrootstl.cab>
with error: A required certificate is not within its validity period
when verifying against the current system clock or the timestamp in the
signed file. "

or, on XP systems, the Application event log entry will read as the one
does from your system -

Event ID 8 is logged in the Application log
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317541

" Event Type: Error
Event Source: crypt32
Event Category: None
Event ID: 8
Date: date
Time: time
User: user name
Computer: computer name
Description:
Failed auto update retrieval of third-party root list sequence number
from:
<http://www.download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/trustedr/en/authrootseq.txt>
with error: This operation returned because the timeout period expired.

Cause
This behavior can occur if the Update Root Certificates component is
turned on and the computer cannot connect to the Windows Update server
on the Internet. The Update Root Certificates component automatically
updates trusted root-certificate authorities from the Microsoft Update
server at regular intervals. "

So, although the entry states " the computer cannot connect to the
Windows Update server on the Internet ", I suspect the time out is
occurring because of the excessive I/O Bytes read issue with MU, which
your system is currently opted in to.


MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
 
S

Spamlet

Flightless Bird
"Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP)" <.@.> wrote in message
news:7nnr66pu37h4hes4u3m1jppn88qd3jd77c@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:01:28 +0100, "Spamlet"
> <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]" <.@.> wrote in message
>>news:cc6r66t8cv92cocfne5lo8s08u9e3ojljb@4ax.com...
>>> >"Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]" <.@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:aloq66hfg2mot5ft6bo6p4mhtb0r9a1hm7@4ax.com...
>>>>> >There's a known issue when an XP system with 512MB of RAM or less is
>>>>>>opted in to Microsoft Update. When Automatic Updates kicks in on boot
>>>>>>there have been numerous posts about system's becoming extremely slow,
>>>>>>totally unresponsive, or even locking up.
>>>>>>The only *temporary* workaround is to opt out of Microsoft Update.
>>>>>>If the mother board allows, a permanent fix appears to be to increase
>>>>>>the RAM to at least 756 MB.
>>>>>>Even then, one poster claimed there was 1 GB of RAM on his XP system
>>>>>>but
>>>>>>it still experienced the same issue unless opted out of MU. That may
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>a system cache or CPU issue, but so far we haven't determined where
>>>>>>his
>>>>>>system's issue lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is news to me. I've never heard of this known issue. Where's the
>>>>> supporting evidence? I've ran windows update on a laptop recently with
>>>>> 128MB RAM. It took a LOOOOOOONG time but it did not fail. If I had to
>>>>> guess, the OP might not have the svchost.exe update that is a known
>>>>> fix for this issue. OP may also just need the Windows Update Agent 3.
>>>>> That usually fixes issues for most people.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]
>>>>
>>>>Ah, well this old laptop only has 256 but is still on Windows Update,
>>>>whereas the XPPro pc has 2Gig and is slow on MS Update.
>>>>
>>>>I expect I already have it, but what is this svchost update you mention,
>>>>and
>>>>how does one tell which version of the update agent one has?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>S
>>>
>>> Search your system32 folder for it. Right-click and do a properties on
>>> it. You'll be able to get the build number from there. The exact
>>> svchost update I don't remember but if I remember it was from 2008.
>>> What I do is install the patch that has the most current version of
>>> svchost.exe which is from KB897571. On the surface it would seem it
>>> doesn't carry it but trust me it installs svchost.exe build
>>> 5.1.2600.5689. Grab that and give it a try.
>>>
>>> Additionally, ensure you're running Windows Installer v4.5:
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942288
>>> That's one other thing I forgot to mention that helps with these
>>> oddball issues sometimes.
>>>
>>> - Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]

>>
>>Thanks for the info:
>>
>>I do have 942288, but not 897571.
>>
>>The svchost.exe in system32 says date modified 14/04/2008, and the
>>properties say it is 5.1.2600.5512 (xpsp.080413-2111).
>>But hovering over the file in system 32 it says the date is 18/08/2001,
>>but
>>hovering over it in the service pack files it says 14/08/2004.
>>
>>So you takes your pick as to what year my one is from!
>>
>>Looking at MS for KB897571 I find it wants me to go to an archive site
>>which
>>it will not let me enter with Firefox, and IE8 has decided to go into its
>>infuriating 'tab that for ever says 'connecting,,, '' mode (that even
>>though I have it on 'About Blank') which was what made me opt for Firefox
>>in
>>the first place... Grrr.
>>
>>Time for bed I think!
>>
>>Cheers,

>
> To get the Hotfix, you need to go here:
> http://support.microsoft.com/hotfix/KBHotfix.aspx?kbnum=897571&kbln=en-us


Thanks for this 'Thee': there is no other way I would have found it or gone
through all the rigmarole and passwords and verifications, just to get one
Hotfix when they normally just turn up and install themselves by the dozen!

I now have the 5689 version of svchost running. The first time I opened
after installing it did rack up to over 200meg again, but opening a second
time it settled out at 15meg. Though WU still seems to stay open for an
unnecessarily long time after start up.

It will be interesting to see how it fares over the next few days,

Cheers once again.

S
 
S

Spamlet

Flightless Bird
"Spamlet" <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4msbh$tl$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP)" <.@.> wrote in message
> news:7nnr66pu37h4hes4u3m1jppn88qd3jd77c@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:01:28 +0100, "Spamlet"
>> <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>

>
> Thanks for this 'Thee': there is no other way I would have found it or
> gone through all the rigmarole and passwords and verifications, just to
> get one Hotfix when they normally just turn up and install themselves by
> the dozen!
>
> I now have the 5689 version of svchost running. The first time I opened
> after installing it did rack up to over 200meg again, but opening a second
> time it settled out at 15meg. Though WU still seems to stay open for an
> unnecessarily long time after start up.
>
> It will be interesting to see how it fares over the next few days,
>
> Cheers once again.
>
> S


Update:

Whilst most of the time the svchost component that hosts winupdate runs at
around 15 meg. Winupdate still kicks in taking it over 200meg and the
process has to be killed in Process Explorer to enable me to go on using the
laptop.

So this is not just a problem with MS update, and I'd certainly like to hear
more about what can be done to limit the ram allowed to WinUpdate.

Cheers,
S
 
P

PA Bear [MS MVP]

Flightless Bird
cf.
http://social.answers.microsoft.com...9a9a03b/#44e80262-9a91-4ddb-9770-63810962cb8c

cf.
http://social.answers.microsoft.com...a300922/#d098eb64-7910-4f3c-9f64-2b82806193b6


Spamlet wrote:
> "Spamlet" <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:i4msbh$tl$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP)" <.@.> wrote in message
>> news:7nnr66pu37h4hes4u3m1jppn88qd3jd77c@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:01:28 +0100, "Spamlet"
>>> <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>

>>
>> Thanks for this 'Thee': there is no other way I would have found it or
>> gone through all the rigmarole and passwords and verifications, just to
>> get one Hotfix when they normally just turn up and install themselves by
>> the dozen!
>>
>> I now have the 5689 version of svchost running. The first time I opened
>> after installing it did rack up to over 200meg again, but opening a
>> second
>> time it settled out at 15meg. Though WU still seems to stay open for an
>> unnecessarily long time after start up.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see how it fares over the next few days,
>>
>> Cheers once again.
>>
>> S

>
> Update:
>
> Whilst most of the time the svchost component that hosts winupdate runs at
> around 15 meg. Winupdate still kicks in taking it over 200meg and the
> process has to be killed in Process Explorer to enable me to go on using
> the
> laptop.
>
> So this is not just a problem with MS update, and I'd certainly like to
> hear
> more about what can be done to limit the ram allowed to WinUpdate.
>
> Cheers,
> S
 
S

Spamlet

Flightless Bird
> Spamlet wrote:
>> "Spamlet" <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:i4msbh$tl$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP)" <.@.> wrote in message
>>> news:7nnr66pu37h4hes4u3m1jppn88qd3jd77c@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:01:28 +0100, "Spamlet"
>>>> <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for this 'Thee': there is no other way I would have found it or
>>> gone through all the rigmarole and passwords and verifications, just to
>>> get one Hotfix when they normally just turn up and install themselves by
>>> the dozen!
>>>
>>> I now have the 5689 version of svchost running. The first time I opened
>>> after installing it did rack up to over 200meg again, but opening a
>>> second
>>> time it settled out at 15meg. Though WU still seems to stay open for an
>>> unnecessarily long time after start up.
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see how it fares over the next few days,
>>>
>>> Cheers once again.
>>>
>>> S

>>
>> Update:
>>
>> Whilst most of the time the svchost component that hosts winupdate runs
>> at
>> around 15 meg. Winupdate still kicks in taking it over 200meg and the
>> process has to be killed in Process Explorer to enable me to go on using
>> the
>> laptop.
>>
>> So this is not just a problem with MS update, and I'd certainly like to
>> hear
>> more about what can be done to limit the ram allowed to WinUpdate.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S


"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-OjPHM%23xQLHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> cf.
> http://social.answers.microsoft.com...9a9a03b/#44e80262-9a91-4ddb-9770-63810962cb8c
>
> cf.
> http://social.answers.microsoft.com...a300922/#d098eb64-7910-4f3c-9f64-2b82806193b6
>


Thanks for the extra detail Robear.

In my case though it is *Windows* Update that is hogging resources.
Or just possibly it might be a combination of factors in the svchost
processes that are in the same PID as Windows Update. I say this because
often the svchost goes over 200 meg before the WU starts to climb.
I do use Process Explorer (which can also be a bit of a memory hog if left
unminimised), but am by no means aware of everything it can do.
Is there any way to get a real time view of the memory usage for each of the
services that are under the same svchost.exe PID as WU?

Cheers,
S
 
P

PA Bear [MS MVP]

Flightless Bird
T

Tim Meddick

Flightless Bird
I also get the "wuauclt.exe" process hogging as much as 80% of all memory
on my PC as well.

My advice would be to disable Automatic Windows Updates, and instead,
create a shortcut on your desktop with the following as it's command-line :

C:/WINDOWS\system32\wuauclt.exe /detectnow

Then, any time you want to check for updates, using the same background
method that Automatic Updates uses, just double-click on the icon.

Do this when all your other work is done and the PC can perform it's Update
background search using as much resources as it needs.

You would normally want to perform such a search for updates about twice a
week.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)




"Spamlet" <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:i50mjb$4co$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Spamlet wrote:
>>> "Spamlet" <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:i4msbh$tl$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP)" <.@.> wrote in message
>>>> news:7nnr66pu37h4hes4u3m1jppn88qd3jd77c@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:01:28 +0100, "Spamlet"
>>>>> <spam.morespam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this 'Thee': there is no other way I would have found it or
>>>> gone through all the rigmarole and passwords and verifications, just
>>>> to
>>>> get one Hotfix when they normally just turn up and install themselves
>>>> by
>>>> the dozen!
>>>>
>>>> I now have the 5689 version of svchost running. The first time I
>>>> opened
>>>> after installing it did rack up to over 200meg again, but opening a
>>>> second
>>>> time it settled out at 15meg. Though WU still seems to stay open for
>>>> an
>>>> unnecessarily long time after start up.
>>>>
>>>> It will be interesting to see how it fares over the next few days,
>>>>
>>>> Cheers once again.
>>>>
>>>> S
>>>
>>> Update:
>>>
>>> Whilst most of the time the svchost component that hosts winupdate runs
>>> at
>>> around 15 meg. Winupdate still kicks in taking it over 200meg and the
>>> process has to be killed in Process Explorer to enable me to go on
>>> using
>>> the
>>> laptop.
>>>
>>> So this is not just a problem with MS update, and I'd certainly like to
>>> hear
>>> more about what can be done to limit the ram allowed to WinUpdate.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> S

>
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:-OjPHM%23xQLHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> cf.
>> http://social.answers.microsoft.com...9a9a03b/#44e80262-9a91-4ddb-9770-63810962cb8c
>>
>> cf.
>> http://social.answers.microsoft.com...a300922/#d098eb64-7910-4f3c-9f64-2b82806193b6
>>

>
> Thanks for the extra detail Robear.
>
> In my case though it is *Windows* Update that is hogging resources.
> Or just possibly it might be a combination of factors in the svchost
> processes that are in the same PID as Windows Update. I say this because
> often the svchost goes over 200 meg before the WU starts to climb.
> I do use Process Explorer (which can also be a bit of a memory hog if
> left unminimised), but am by no means aware of everything it can do.
> Is there any way to get a real time view of the memory usage for each of
> the
> services that are under the same svchost.exe PID as WU?
>
> Cheers,
> S
>
>
>
 
S

Spamlet

Flightless Bird
"Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eHOfqh9QLHA.2104@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I also get the "wuauclt.exe" process hogging as much as 80% of all memory
>on my PC as well.
>
> My advice would be to disable Automatic Windows Updates, and instead,
> create a shortcut on your desktop with the following as it's command-line
> :
>
> C:/WINDOWS\system32\wuauclt.exe /detectnow
>
> Then, any time you want to check for updates, using the same background
> method that Automatic Updates uses, just double-click on the icon.
>
> Do this when all your other work is done and the PC can perform it's
> Update background search using as much resources as it needs.
>
> You would normally want to perform such a search for updates about twice a
> week.
>
> ==
>
> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)


Good idea Tim.
Thanks for the tip.

S
 
S

Spamlet

Flightless Bird
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:exQhUY9QLHA.4996@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Spamlet wrote:
> <snippage>
>>> cf.
>>> http://social.answers.microsoft.com...9a9a03b/#44e80262-9a91-4ddb-9770-63810962cb8c
>>>
>>> cf.
>>> http://social.answers.microsoft.com...a300922/#d098eb64-7910-4f3c-9f64-2b82806193b6
>>>

>>
>> Thanks for the extra detail Robear.
>>
>> In my case though it is *Windows* Update that is hogging resources...

>
> Does http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com take you to
> http://update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate or
> http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate ?


It takes me to:
http://update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/thanks.aspx?ln=en&&thankspage=5

(I use Firefox most of the time because IE8 says 'connecting' for ages even
though I have it set to 'About Blank')

But you have not answered my question about how to see what the other
services in the same svchost PID are using.

S
 
Top