Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Svchost.exe sucking up a lot of memory?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Dman20202

Dman20202

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:27 AM

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:11 AM

First off I am new to these forums and would like to say hello. A friend recomended these forums because people here have helped him out in the past. I hope that these forums will be able to help me fix my problem and any issues that may come latter down the road.

I recently noticed that a svchost.exe process on my PC has been sucking up large amounts of memory as of late, somewhere in between 100,000 and 200,000 KB. It also seems to slowly suck up more memory the longer I use my PC. This concerns me because I know that malicious programs like to root themselves in the multiple svchost processes including trojans, spyware, adware, keyloggers, etc. I currently use McAfee, Malwarebytes, and Spybot S&D as security measures. I have also run scans with all three and nothing appears to be there. Still I am rather concerned about the issue.

For troubleshooting purposes here is the svchost.exe I am concerned with:
svchost.exe PID 320
Services:
wudfsvc
Wlansvc
UxSms
TrkWks
SysMain
PcaSvc
Netman
HomeGroupListener
hidserv

I would really appreciate any help that would put me at ease.
"A man chooses, a slave obeys."
--Bioshock, Andrew Ryan

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Zuhl3156

Zuhl3156

  • Members
  • 309 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bensalem, Pa.
  • Local time:04:27 AM

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:19 AM

Here is something that may be of some help to you:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/97098-runaway-svchostexe-on-bootup/

#3 Dman20202

Dman20202
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:27 AM

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:34 AM

Here is something that may be of some help to you:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/97098-runaway-svchostexe-on-bootup/


Thanks for the link! It would appear that SysMain aka Superfetch is the service that was sucking up so much memory. However I am unsure from that post if I should leave it on or not. I also still don't understand why it kept slowly taking more and more memory.
"A man chooses, a slave obeys."
--Bioshock, Andrew Ryan

#4 Zuhl3156

Zuhl3156

  • Members
  • 309 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bensalem, Pa.
  • Local time:04:27 AM

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:55 AM

This is something that I'm not qualified to answer. I'm not an expert in the area of 'Malware' but I don't see anything unusual. 100 to 200 Kb of memory is not a whole lot to worry about. My system starts out in the morning using around 1.8 GB and then creeps up to 2.3-2.4 after a while. I have 8GB RAM so this is not an issue to me while it might be to someone using the minimum Windows 7 recommended 2 GB. You can try disabling 'Superfetch' in the Services panel and see if your RAM usage stays stable. If Superfetch is the Service using the RAM then that that should eliminate 'Malware' as the cause. I have an SSD system drive and I have gone against most recommendations to disable it because leaving it enabled does improve my performance and response times. I used the ATTO freeware benchmark to get my performance information.
http://majorgeeks.com/ATTO_Disk_Benchmark_d6359.html
I'd like to get my system to actually use more RAM as I have 8 GB and rarely use more than 2.4 even during heavy gaming.

#5 Romeo29

Romeo29

    Learning To Bleep


  • Members
  • 3,194 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:127.0.0.1
  • Local time:03:27 AM

Posted 12 February 2011 - 10:55 AM

When I install fresh copies Windows Vista and 7, I immediately disable Superfetch and Windows Search services. They run through svchost.exe obviously.
These services hog your system resources and keep your hard disk running. But if you are an avid fan of searching your hard disk contents, then you should keep them enabled - over time you may get better and faster search results.

#6 ThunderZ

ThunderZ

  • Deactivated
  • 4,454 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:27 AM

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:26 AM

I'd like to get my system to actually use more RAM as I have 8 GB and rarely use more than 2.4 even during heavy gaming.


Sorry for going OT but, @ Zuhl3156. Have you thought about reducing\eliminating your paging file. Not sure how it is done on Win7 or that it can be done.

I do know on my XP lap top with only 2 Gig and an SSD hdd I disabled it to save read\writes to the SSD.
Actually it can not be completely shut off. XP still maintains about a 300+\- MB swap file. Have run it this way for quit a long time with no ill effects.

#7 Allan

Allan

  • BC Advisor
  • 8,630 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:04:27 AM

Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:36 AM

I recommend against setting the pagefile to zero ("disabling it") in any version of Windows.

#8 Zuhl3156

Zuhl3156

  • Members
  • 309 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bensalem, Pa.
  • Local time:04:27 AM

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:05 PM

I'd like to get my system to actually use more RAM as I have 8 GB and rarely use more than 2.4 even during heavy gaming.


Sorry for going OT but, @ Zuhl3156. Have you thought about reducing\eliminating your paging file. Not sure how it is done on Win7 or that it can be done.

I do know on my XP lap top with only 2 Gig and an SSD hdd I disabled it to save read\writes to the SSD.
Actually it can not be completely shut off. XP still maintains about a 300+\- MB swap file. Have run it this way for quit a long time with no ill effects.

Thanks for the reply ThunderZ I've tried that and it caused YouTube videos to stutter, stop, then load for a while before it would play again. Re-enabling a Paging file fixed it so I'm sure that was the cause. Most techs insist that the Paging file be placed on the system disk but I've found a much better solution and have gained FPS in gaming and cut my backup times in half. My User data is on a separate HDD to save space on my 60 GB Agility 2. I initially thought placing the Paging file on the SSD would provide good performance. A recent thread claims having the Paging file on the system disk causes a slow down in data reads because it has to 'call' on the System drive twice as often, one call to the Operating system and then a call to the Paging file. So, I moved the Paging file to my User Data HDD with no change in performance when it occurred to me that my system also has to access information from the User HDD. My solution was to utilize the HDD in my system that sits around doing absolutely nothing except wait for me to backup data to it once a week. What I did was to use Disk Management to 'Shrink' the 500 GB drive by 20 GB and create a new partition I named P: Paging file. I disabled the Paging file on all of the other drives and placed a 16380 MB Paging file on 'P'. The small partition size and using a fixed size of 16380 MB prevents the Paging file from becoming fragmented. My normal data backup that used to take 45-50 minutes now completes in 22 minutes. My system image (only 25 GB) completes in 11 minutes. I know this configuration goes against all conventional recommendations but it works for me with really really good results. I'm keeping it this way despite any criticism I might get for doing it!

Edited by Zuhl3156, 12 February 2011 - 12:09 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users