TeaTimer.exe: ever increasing RAM usage.

[NotGeordie]

I've been using SB S&D for a few years and note that TeaTimer RAM usage is 'creeping' up. With the 22 July update it increased from an average of 88 MB RAM to an average of 91 MB RAM on both of my computers. At the moment this is not a serious problem (XP Home SP3, Intel Core2 Duo @ 2Ghz, 2 GB RAM, IE8), but if this trend continues it may become one. Please keep in mind that TeaTimer is not the only process requiring RAM. It is, though, the single largest consumer of RAM amongst the most common processes/applications that I normally use. More than IE 8, more than my NIS 2009 . . . more than most put together. I also note that after surfing gently for an hour or so the RAM usage gradually grows even higher. Increasing to as much as 99 MB.
Don't get me wrong. I love the product, find it easy to use and it helps give me that 'warm fuzzy feeling'. But is it not approaching the dreaded level of 'bad-ware' when it requires more RAM than the main application it is supposed to be protecting?
It is my practice to, after updating, immunizing and running a scan, reboot my computers. During that reboot (and this only occurs after an update) CPU usage by TeaTimer runs at 50% for several minutes before calming down. Is this normal? What is it doing during that period of high CPU usage?
I do hope my post is sensible and in the appropriate forum (though I read posts in this forum frequently this is my first posting. Thank you for your patience).

[spybotsandra]

Hello,

When the computer is running for a long time without a standby, reboot, or shutdown memory consumption of a (refers to any) can slightly increase.

It's taking that much because TeaTimer is a Resident Shield that actively protects you from malware. I would suggest you reboot and see how it goes. Usually TeaTimer will take up 35-50MB of RAM. Seeing that modern PCs built today have more RAM and resources, 80MB should be nothing.

Best regards
Sandra
Team Spybot

[NotGeordie]

Yes, I'm aware that, "memory consumption of a (refers to any) can slightly increase."

As such I do reboot quite frequently. That said, the problem remains that with each new update, TeaTimer RAM usage increases. After a reboot, it now stands at just above 91 MB, significantly more than my other active protection (NIS 2009).

I agree that 80 MB would be nothing at present were TeaTimer the only process requiring resources. My concern is as stated above - it keeps growing.

I remain curious as to why the CPU usage (of TeaTimer) is 50% for several minutes after a reboot following an update. What is it doing?

Thanks for the response.

[drragostea]

This response might be near adequate:

Is this RAM usage becoming a problem? Meaning having an active impact on your machine? Duo Core 2 running with 2GB is a LOT of resources compared to my 1.5GB P4 33.0 Ghz. And I can personally tell you that running TeaTimer does not appear to "slow" down my machine or make it sluggish.

Seeing that modern PCs built today have more RAM and resources, 80MB should be nothing.
The RAM usage (might vary from machine to machine) shouldn't be a problem unless the user feels it is, like it is taking resources that can be used for other problems (in other words, fighting with others for RAM).

Run ATF Cleaner by Atribune and clear your cookies, cache, and temp. files and see if that helps your situation:
http://www.atribune.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=25

[NotGeordie]

I fear that my initial post may have been misunderstood.

I pointed out the upward 'creep' of RAM usage by TeaTimer.exe with intent to determine whether or not others had noticed this phenomenon and/or to see if it was a problem unique to my computers. If the former then I wondered how far the designers would let it go and if the latter perhaps someone could suggest how I could keep it under control. As I said, it is not a problem at the moment, but if it's RAM usage continues to grow it may become one.

I also queried the CPU usage after a reboot which only occurs after the regular Wednesday update. I remain curious what TeaTimer is doing for those several minutes after the reboot, when it uses 50% of mu CPU. It is only after the update and subsequent reboot that I see this happening. It does not re-occur upon subsequent reboots.

I do keep my cookies/cache/temp files cleared out with great frequency.

I apologize if I haven't been clear. My mind is convoluted.

Thank you for your replies.

[NotGeordie]

I also queried the CPU usage after a reboot which only occurs after the regular Wednesday update. I remain curious what TeaTimer is doing for those several minutes after the reboot, when it uses 50% of mu CPU. It is only after the update and subsequent reboot that I see this happening. It does not re-occur upon subsequent reboots.



Any Takers?

[bitman]

What you're basically looking for is here in a year old thread.

TeaTimer CPU load after startup thoughts
http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?p=212810#post212810

However, if you continue to read through that thread you'll find that it discusses your entire set of issues mentioned here. It also progresses through the solutions put in place at that time, though of course the number of detections and thus the amount of overhead has changed significantly since then.

These are difficult issues with trade-offs as you can easily see. The only effective way to resolve them is an entire re-write of the application from the ground up, which is occuring in parallel with Spybot S&D 2.0, though that's still only in limited beta and hasn't been seen by most here. Hopefully that will become available before the 'numbers game' to which you're referring becomes critical for most.

Though someone with the type of PC you have really has no need to be concerned at this point, this has become an issue for some of those with older less capable systems as that thread showed clearly.

My concern is primarily that such side-steps into issues with the 1.6x version simply add to the delay in releasing the 2.0 version. I'd much rather see PepiMK simply limit further 1.5 development to significant bug fix only and instead place all of his resources into moving 2.0 to completion.

Bitman

[NotGeordie]

Thanks for the answer. I had tried to search the forum for that very issue, but I guess my search parameters were unsatisfactory.

I agree with you and look forward to the next build. I still am fond of the product and hope I didn't get anyone's nose out of joint.