wudfsvc WINDOWS DRIVER FOUNDATION uses too much memory

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

  1. Posts : 96
    vista 32 bit and 64 bit
    Thread Starter
       #11

    disabling WINDOWS DRIVER FOUNDATION did not solve the issue, the SVCHOST is still running 210,000K I have a more detailed screenshot now thanks to Prio - Priority Saver What do you think?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails wudfsvc WINDOWS DRIVER FOUNDATION uses too much memory-tskmngr.jpg  
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 824
    Windows 7 Professional 32-bit (6.1, Build 7600)
       #12

    samhfoley said:
    disabling WINDOWS DRIVER FOUNDATION did not solve the issue, the SVCHOST is still running 210,000K I have a more detailed screenshot now thanks to Prio - Priority Saver What do you think?
    Disable each listed one at a time and see which one frees up the most memory. Right click that svchost.exe and in the context menu there is an item Go to Service. If you have Process Explorer you should be able to see which one is taking the most mem with out disabling them all one at a time.
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 8,608
    Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit SP1
       #13

    Would you mind finding this file C:\Windows\system32\srvany.exe and uploading it to Virus Total and have it scanned, please.
    VirusTotal - Free Online Virus and Malware Scan

    Do you know what Service this is for? Service: KMService - Unknown owner - C:\Windows\system32\srvany.exe

    I'm not finding much about the KMService
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 96
    vista 32 bit and 64 bit
    Thread Starter
       #14

    Jacee,

    Funny thing is when I did a search of my C drive just now I got 0 results back for srvany.exe
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 96
    vista 32 bit and 64 bit
    Thread Starter
       #15

    wait, now here is is, I have 64 bit OS so it was in another folder. Here are the results
    File srvany.exe received on 2010.06.23 17:54:37 (UTC)
    Current status: finished
    Result: 0/41 (0.00%)



    Antivirus Version Last Update Result a-squared 5.0.0.30 2010.06.23 - AhnLab-V3 2010.06.23.01 2010.06.23 - AntiVir 8.2.4.2 2010.06.23 - Antiy-AVL 2.0.3.7 2010.06.23 - Authentium 5.2.0.5 2010.06.23 - Avast 4.8.1351.0 2010.06.23 - Avast5 5.0.332.0 2010.06.23 - AVG 9.0.0.836 2010.06.23 - BitDefender 7.2 2010.06.23 - CAT-QuickHeal 10.00 2010.06.23 - ClamAV 0.96.0.3-git 2010.06.23 - Comodo 5195 2010.06.23 - DrWeb 5.0.2.03300 2010.06.23 - eSafe 7.0.17.0 2010.06.23 - eTrust-Vet 36.1.7661 2010.06.23 - F-Prot 4.6.1.107 2010.06.22 - F-Secure 9.0.15370.0 2010.06.23 - Fortinet 4.1.133.0 2010.06.23 - GData 21 2010.06.23 - Ikarus T3.1.1.84.0 2010.06.23 - Jiangmin 13.0.900 2010.06.15 - Kaspersky 7.0.0.125 2010.06.23 - McAfee 5.400.0.1158 2010.06.23 - McAfee-GW-Edition 2010.1 2010.06.23 - Microsoft 1.5902 2010.06.23 - NOD32 5223 2010.06.23 - Norman 6.05.10 2010.06.23 - nProtect 2010-06-23.02 2010.06.23 - Panda 10.0.2.7 2010.06.23 - PCTools 7.0.3.5 2010.06.23 - Prevx 3.0 2010.06.23 - Rising 22.53.02.04 2010.06.23 - Sophos 4.54.0 2010.06.23 - Sunbelt 6494 2010.06.23 - Symantec 20101.1.0.89 2010.06.23 - TheHacker 6.5.2.0.303 2010.06.23 - TrendMicro 9.120.0.1004 2010.06.23 - TrendMicro-HouseCall 9.120.0.1004 2010.06.23 - VBA32 3.12.12.5 2010.06.23 - ViRobot 2010.6.21.3896 2010.06.23 - VirusBuster 5.0.27.0 2010.06.23 - Additional information File size: 8192 bytes MD5 : 4635935fc972c582632bf45c26bfcb0e SHA1 : 7c5329229042535fe56e74f1f246c6da8cea3be8 SHA256: abd4afd71b3c2bd3f741bbe3cec52c4fa63ac78d353101d2e7dc4de2725d1ca1 PEInfo: PE Structure information

    ( base data )
    entrypointaddress.: 0x204F
    timedatestamp.....: 0x3EA0A111 (Sat Apr 19 03:06:25 2003)
    machinetype.......: 0x14C (Intel I386)

    ( 2 sections )
    name viradd virsiz rawdsiz ntrpy md5
    .text 0x1000 0x1850 0x1A00 5.90 15e98b94442b1f91f87ade4cf12eff4a
    .data 0x3000 0x84 0x200 0.10 f240843d2fbe96bfb6d862c6c366d5a1

    ( 0 imports )


    ( 0 exports )
    TrID : File type identification
    Win32 Executable Generic (42.3%)
    Win32 Dynamic Link Library (generic) (37.6%)
    Generic Win/DOS Executable (9.9%)
    DOS Executable Generic (9.9%)
    Autodesk FLIC Image File (extensions: flc, fli, cel) (0.0%) ThreatExpert: ThreatExpert Report ssdeep: 96:8ldfxd/yKaP64DMI1XT3kaiyMlH38ZldnXFADkYLyAFdfcdTbGu00C:mSP64DMI1DkHMZ36kYLxFdfcdnGu00C sigcheck: publisher....: n/a
    copyright....: n/a
    product......: n/a
    description..: n/a
    original name: n/a
    internal name: n/a
    file version.: n/a
    comments.....: n/a
    signers......: -
    signing date.: -
    verified.....: Unsigned
    PEiD : - RDS : NSRL Reference Data Set
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 96
    vista 32 bit and 64 bit
    Thread Starter
       #16

    Greg S said:
    samhfoley said:
    disabling WINDOWS DRIVER FOUNDATION did not solve the issue, the SVCHOST is still running 210,000K I have a more detailed screenshot now thanks to Prio - Priority Saver What do you think?
    Disable each listed one at a time and see which one frees up the most memory. Right click that svchost.exe and in the context menu there is an item Go to Service. If you have Process Explorer you should be able to see which one is taking the most mem with out disabling them all one at a time.

    I stopped all the services one at a time and the one that reduced the most memory was Superfetch. I don't know if this is relevant or not, but I just sent back a faulty SSD HDD and copied a disk image onto a 150GB Raptor HDD until the RMA comes back. What can I do about Superfetch?
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 824
    Windows 7 Professional 32-bit (6.1, Build 7600)
       #17

    samhfoley said:
    Jacee,

    Funny thing is when I did a search of my C drive just now I got 0 results back for srvany.exe
    srvany.exe - srvany, Service Any, Delete and Removal Information!

    It appears a normal MS thingy. Neither of the two mentioned are being hosted by your svchost.exe. On a sidenote, what are the two extra titlebar buttons in your screenshot?
      My Computer


  8. whs
    Posts : 26,210
    Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
       #18

    samhfoley said:
    What do you mean by WHS? I am a bit confused. I thought we were talking about WINDOWS DRIVER FOUNDATION or wudfsvc. Please be a bit more specific as I am unsure what you are referring to. Thanks
    LOL, I think I posted at one time that I disable the service in "Services" (you have to then do a reboot). It is always getting into the way of WMP - makes the cursor permanently flicker and uses a lot of CPU time - at least in my case. But that only happens when I have a USB stick with data attached. I think it is trying to sync WMP files with the USB stick.
    I have not noticed any negative effects when the Driver Foundation is disabled - neither in Vista nor in Win7.
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 96
    vista 32 bit and 64 bit
    Thread Starter
       #19

    [QUOTE=Greg S;803901]
    samhfoley said:
    Jacee,

    On a sidenote, what are the two extra titlebar buttons in your screenshot?
    Those are from a program called Ultrmon which lets me toggle things between my 2 monitors and also gives me a taskbar on both monitors
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 824
    Windows 7 Professional 32-bit (6.1, Build 7600)
       #20

    whs said:
    samhfoley said:
    What do you mean by WHS? I am a bit confused. I thought we were talking about WINDOWS DRIVER FOUNDATION or wudfsvc. Please be a bit more specific as I am unsure what you are referring to. Thanks
    LOL, I think I posted at one time that I disable the service in "Services" (you have to then do a reboot). It is always getting into the way of WMP - makes the cursor permanently flicker and uses a lot of CPU time - at least in my case. But that only happens when I have a USB stick with data attached. I think it is trying to sync WMP files with the USB stick.
    I have not noticed any negative effects when the Driver Foundation is disabled - neither in Vista nor in Win7.
    Good info whs about the WMP conflict. I do not have it disabled but it's good to keep in mind for a just in case. About your name mixup, I was trying to let the user know if you have disabled it with no ill effects, that you were very trustworthy but it didn't come out right,lol.
      My Computer


 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:54.
Find Us