My computer at home just updated to 2.4.17.183. Once cpfupdat.exe opened and started the process, explorer.exe climbed up to a high of 68% of CPU resources. I grabbed a screenshot (attached), but by the time I pressed the keys, turns out it was at 24%. It kept going up and down; 68% was the highest I saw, and about 7% was the lowest. Cpfupdat.exe didn’t use that much itself, but then again, it was all recording to explorer.exe (which I presume was being used to connect to your servers…).
I have my network rules set to block and not log all the “normal” junk that comes across, so they’re not cluttered up with stuff that doesn’t need to be there. The only inbound are for my DNS/DHCP service, from the specified IPs. Outbound is limited to specific Port and/or IP.
To be honest, I’ve never even looked at the logs; never felt I had a need to. I can’t imagine there’s much activity there, given my ruleset. But, you never know…
That, and although it could be somewhat deceptive, the usage was by explorer.exe, only during the update to CFP. Once the update was done, everything returned to normal. So far, I have not experienced high CPU usage by CFP, as so many others have. Of course, I never “updated” from 2.3 to 2.4; since I had the Beta, I downloaded from the website, uninstalled the old, and fresh-installed the new. That update between the versions seems to me to be related to the high cpu usage.
I don’t know… since I’ve been using the Betas for some time, I haven’t had any updates. It’s been “uninstall/install” for me for some time now…
This is the first time I’ve seen an update occur. It updated at work the other day, but I didn’t have ProcessExplorer open and wasn’t paying any attention to it. To be honest, I probably wouldn’t have noticed it if I hadn’t been watching PE for some cavse.exe reporting.
This statement is not referring to my posting; it’s referring to what I’ve seen from others experiencing the high cpu usage by CFP. To me, it seems the majority of those users initially got (tried to get) 2.4 through the updater, and ran into problems. I could be wrong on that, but that’s my impression…
I see what you mean here. I updated to the latest, taking a chance after my BSOD occurance and so far no problems. I haven’t had any CPU excessiveness at all not in any version i’ve used so there must be something in common that is causing this else wouldn’t everyone get it? You don’t have an ISP firewall do you? Not that you wouldn’t know this but many don’t know their ISP firewall is active, heck I had no idea until I burrowed into mine. There was no way to tell on my end if it was on or not and was causing problems with my router, etc…Just a thought but I can already guess your answer.
You also made sure there were no “exceptions in XP firewall” Lan unchecked in XP firewall as well, no shutting it off doesn’t work, the other options must be tackled. I know, you already know this too, hmmmm. Well, I’ll just leave it to Egemen , he Da Man.
Yeah, “The Eg” will have to answer, I’m sure… ;D Hopefully not with the “smite” key, or body-slam me; hey! I haven’t done anything…
Yes, WinXP FW is Off. Exceptions are checked. NIC is unchecked.
As to an ISP FW, I don’t know. They have not provided a hardware one to me. They do provide ZA, but I never installed it (for some reason…). Surely they run something on their servers, but who knows… Why would them having either hardware or software firewalls on their servers impact me downloading an update (such that it would cause explorer.exe CPU usage to spike up)? We’re not talking “Uncle JoeBob’s Nifty Internet Service” here, either, but a “real” telecom company; surely their servers would be optimized to handle the volume of traffic they know they experience…
LM, the firewalls some provide will in fact firewall your specific connection and others, not just the server firewalls. We had an outrage here with Charter communications , most of the town a few minutes from me, were having connection issues, high usages with firewalls, etc…and here it’s because charter had implemented their firewall per personal connection w\o knowledge of it. Finally, they shut them off and left it as an option. I had my SBC firewall chosen to not be on, didn’t even know they had this at first. But as I stated, when I had charter, I was getting different issues and this was prior to using Comodo at all.
