I updated to CIS 6.0 and I must say its really freaking slow. Every time I open a window, especially the ones with apps listed it takes ages and one CPU core is frozen. I have a rather old PC with 2.6 GHz and two cores, but anyways - CIS 5.x was faaaast.
What can I do?
Also: I needed to switch to the CIS 5.0 configuration (labelled “COMODO - Internet Security 5.x”) as my old settings were not transferred / converted to the default CIS 6.0 config during the update and CIS started to re-learn everything from scratch. How can I change that and remove the old 5.0’r?
From the information you have given I am not clear whether this is a bug/issue.
For the moment I will transfer you to help so you can work through this issue with users and mods in this forum and hopefully resolve it. I hope that is OK.
Please ask any mod to move this report back to the bugs forum if it becomes clear that it is a bug/issue.
Well what else do you need? WinXP-SP3 32bit, all patches, no other AV, no other firewall, CIS6 with full AV update … what else?
Again the issue: All dialogs / operation I enter are really slow. “Purge” does not work at all, the UI freezes and never comes back. Sounds very much like a bug to me…?!
Can you please reinstall CIS by following the advice I give in this topic and see if after reinstalling it the problems are gone? Make sure not to import your rules until you find out how it is behaving.
I have written my own benchmark that I use to discover the impact of security software on overall performance. This benchmark is a simple C++ program that calls Win32 API LoadLibrary(…) function for every dynamic library (*.dll) in my “windows/system32” folder. It of course measures overall time my program spends during those calls.
Despite of obvious simplicity of this benchmark it models real situation as in real life real applications often uses a lot of libraries.
I have carried out four experiments with my benchmark program in different environment (see below in the table). Every benchmark was run twice to discover the impact of caching ability. To average the result I have carried out every experiment five times rebooting the system before every test. So the results are the next.
[tr][td]Environment[/td][td]First run[/td][td]Second run[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Clean system without security software[/td][td]6558 ms[/td][td]990 ms[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]System with CIS 5.10 with default settings[/td][td]10442 ms[/td][td]1762 ms[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]System with CIS 6 with default settings[/td][td]10411 ms[/td][td]3609 ms[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]System with Outpost security suite 8 with default settings[/td][td]9422 ms[/td][td]2823 ms[/td][/tr]
The main purpose of this benchmark was to compare CIS 5.10 with CIS 6 before moving on to new version. But this result has stopped me because CIS 6 more than two times slower than CIS 5.10 in the second run of my benchmark. This test shows that caching ability of the new version much more poor than it presented in CIS 5.10.
The main question to developers and community:
Is there some plans to improve this situation in the future?
Or maybe there are some configuration options to overcome this problem?
I found this article on CIS 2013. Comodo Internet Security Premium (2013) Review | PCMag However, I would not take this article a 100% a face value it’s PC Mag afterall. From reading the article it looks like Comodo has some work to do in it’s overall performance and even more work on it’s firewall / HIPS / Behavior Blocker. Hopefully ,Comodo will improve its performance in its next release. Comodo did perform well in blocking malware with behavior blocker enabled but not so with behavior blocker disabled. I personal will not use verison 5 again because of unresolve problems with preformance of its HIPS, and other bugs, and version 6 look nice. Comodo is still the best free product in terms of free av or internet security suite in my opinion.
Performance gain was made with the AV introducing AV cache and related Rating Scan that will let the AV scan already scanned files as long as the av was not updated (hence why the av update frequency went down to checking every 6 hrs because when updating the cache will be renewed).
Well i’m disappointing how the av works, every time i start my windows, and open a folder that contain shortcuts of my programs, av process scan madly this shortcuts i don’t see any free av on the market that does this. So the av still need works, for now avast free 7 is more fast than comodo av, even system seems to be more fast with only avast free and windows firewall(win 7 32 bit). So for now i will use this combination, CIS 6 is a great program but still need work on performance. Only future will tell if comodo will do something in this direction, if not i will never use CIS. I want my system to be fast, not slow 88)
well, i guess it needs a lot more “gain” in this matter… cis 6 uses more ram and cpu then cis 5 in my home computer (in my 2 laptops too, and 10 computers in my company and 3 of friends). in these cases every single one sitched back to cis5.12…
Different strokes for different folks.So many different specs and configurations in the world and this is why i feel benchmarking is completely pointless.
Ok this test was done on a specific single machine so in the whole spectrum of configurations out there it is minute and not relevant.
Your computer is only going to run as fast as the specs allow…If you want more speed then buy a more powerful computer .
Often its a slow computer in general and not software that is at fault so in this respect im not interested in pointless benchmark tests which incidentally was not performed on my computer so why should this result be relevant to me…?
Comodo has always run just fine for me and is perfectly quick enough for my needs so personal needs should be taken in hand also, ;D ;D
If you have a recent computer quad core or what not you don’t notice any slowness. I actually have found that a PC can run faster with Comodo installed in some aspects.If you are running XP and stile on single core and under a gig of ram i can see the concern. Very slight difference i see in performance. I have no complaints… Whats a second or two slower. not even noticeable here. We will see how the update works when it comes to the 5.12 updater at the end of this month for those that choose to upgrade. I have no complaints.6 gets better with every build.
I think people are just pointing out that on their systems, CIS 6 is more resource intensive than previous versions, which I agree with. You’re obviously happy with the way it runs.
At the end of the day, it’s not about hardware specifications, it’s simply about comparing CIS 5 and CIS 6, with the same configuration (as near as can be achieved), on the same hardware. In every test I’ve done, using a variety of tools, CIS 6 has more of an impact on resources, boot time and system performance. These issues combined with many others mentioned elsewhere, are all reasons why, some, like me, won’t use version 6.
Perhaps ive just been lucky but i dont feel and major difference between version 5 and v6.I know some users have unfortunately experienced some issues and naturally comodo wont run well with every computer out there.
Before CIS 5.10 took about 10 MB now it takes more like 30 MB. I think this is because of the fully virtual processes. CIS 6 still does not seem heavy on my system though. I am very happy with it. Can’t do without it.
My benchmark just pointed out the performance difference between CIS 5 and CIS 6. The problem actually exists no matter what hardware you are using. I think this information will be useful to CIS developers as well as to CIS users.
You should take it in mind that launching every application will require twice the time when using CIS 6 comparing with CIS 5. Let’s imagine that you use CIS 5 and regularly launch many applications such as IE, Firefox, MS Word etc. The single launch, for example, takes 5 seconds in your hardware. Now if you decide to switch onto CIS 6 the launch would takes 10 seconds. Of course, if your heavy application launches in 1 second you should not notice the difference. But I think CIS developers should take it into consideration.
I have it installed on a Win7 64 bit system, a 32 bit Vista system, and a 32 bit XP system. There are no performance issues on any of them and the RAM usage is about 18mb on each one.
