No defender is expected.Copyright © 2021 NortonLifeLock Inc. NortonLifeLock, the NortonLifeLock Logo, the Checkmark Logo, Norton, LifeLock, and the LockMan Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of NortonLifeLock Inc. Or its affiliates in the United States and other countries. Windows AntiMalware is using GPU and making my laptop HOT Solved. My laptop from last couple of days is extremely hot. First I thought it is because we are not running AC and fan that much because of cold weather but sometimes it became so hot that we had to cool it down by either hibernating it or putting it in front of a running AC.The Norton and LifeLock Brands are part of NortonLifeLock Inc.
Mac, iPhone, iPad, Apple and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc. Alexa and all related logos are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. Microsoft and the Window logo are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the U.S. The Android robot is reproduced or modified from work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License. The need to disable Windows Defender can help speed up the overall time when you find yourself copying large amounts of data to and from your PC or USB or having a conflict between Windows Defender and another type of antivirus solution.But hes definitely a legit first-round talent.
It'sConfigured with a special user account. This is a security precaution from Microsoft. You can't programmatically control Windows Defender, even as anAdministrator.
I didn't see a bug forProgrammatically disabling power save mode while building, but I recallOn Fri, Mar 17, 2017, at 02:20 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:> Back to the original topic, I recently set up a fresh Windows machine> and I followed the same basic steps (enable performance power mode,> whitelist a bunch of stuff in Windows Defender) and my build seemed> basically CPU-bound during the compile tier. There hasn't been muchTraction on any of the bugs though, perhaps a good topic for the next- Bug 1095293 - Use msvc's '/MP' option- Bug 1321922 - Use symlinks on windows to avoid copying files into- Bug 1326329 - Each time we call 'cl' we spawn 5 processes- Bug 1326333 - Build from legit msvc project files to leverage- Bug 1326353 - Reduce the amount of console output when buildingIntegrating suggestions for first-time builders into `mach bootstrap` wouldCertainly be great (even if it's just a link to a "10 crazy things thatWill make your windows build faster!" article). It would be great to file / block existingBugs against the meta bug to track these issues. Disabling realtimeProtection in Defender made it *slightly* better but didn't have aLarge impact on the overall build time (something like 20s out of ~14mIdeally we should have this stuff as part of `mach bootstrap` or similarSo everyone gets their machine configured properly for the fastestRelated, my next steps were that I was planning to figure out how toGather an xperf profile of the entire build process to see if there wereAny obvious speedups left from a system perspective (the resource usageGraph shows the obvious inefficiencies left that are already known:Configure + the non-compile tiers), but UIforETW hung when I tried toUse it to do so and I haven't followed up yet.I filed meta bug 1326328 a few months ago for tracking things we can doTo improve Windows build times.
Is Nodefender Legit Full Clobber Builds
I didn't save the actual output of `time`Anywhere, but going back through my IRC logs the first build I did onThe machine took 15:08.01, the second (where all the source files oughtTo be in the filesystem cache) took 14:58.24, and then another build IDid with Defender's real-time indexing disabled took 14:27.73. (I haveThe same machine, FWIW.) The svg files I uploaded were from `machResource-usage`, which has nice output but not a good way to share theResulting data externally. This is on one of the new lenovoNope, full clobber builds: `./mach clobber time. With defender> disabled the best I can get is 18min.
Is Nodefender Legit .Exe Take A
If you look at the resource usage graphs IPosted it's pretty apparent where that is (the full `machResource-usage` HTML page has a nicer breakdown of tiers). I also saw link.exe take a> long time without parallelism, but i think that's a known issue.Yeah, I specifically meant "CPU-bound during the compile tier", where weCompile all the C++ code. For example,> the end of the js lib build I observed a single cl.exe process sit for ~2> minutes while no other work was being done. (I will try to track down the source of that number.) ThatGives us a fair lower-bound to shoot for, I think.> I definitely observed periods where it was not CPU bound.
And FILES_PER_UNIFIED_FILE is not going to be able to breakThat one file down any more. One thing we could try here would be to hack up some> instrumentation to record the time taken to compile each source file,> which would let us determine if we need to tweak> `FILES_PER_UNIFIED_FILE` lower, at least.If I'm understanding correctly, that's not really coming into play here.(Though maybe it would, if we had left it at the default.) The onlyThing that matters in this case is Interpreter.cpp, which is the slowestFile to compile in the JS engine, and quite possibly in the wholeBrowser. We do try to build js/src pretty early in the build, although> the exact workings of the compile tier is not something I currently> understand. This is also why> the `FILES_PER_UNIFIED_FILE` setting is lower in js/src than the rest of> the tree. TheDisk usage showed ~5% active time, presumably mostly the compilerGenerating output, and memory usage seemed to be stable at around 9GBFor most of the build (I didn't watch during libxul linking, I wouldn't> Yeah, the JS engine uses a lot more complex C++ features than the rest> of the code in our tree, so it takes longer to compile. I also manually monitored disk andMemory usage during the second build, and didn't see much there.
I can't explain the reason. An exclusion list made almost no difference. Disabling entirely McAfee: the time dropped to 28 minutes.Uninstalling McAfee completely, enabling Windows defender with an exclusion list as mentioned in the first post: 26.5 minutesNow disabling Windows Defender: not just an exclusion list saw the time dropped to 25 minutes.Interestingly, on the Aero disabling Windows Defender or having just an exclusion list made almost no difference in compilation time. On the XPS 15, first go 38 minutes.The XPS 15 came with McAfee anti-virus and Windows Defender is disabled. Starting it early in the build would certainly be good.I have received the new Dell and got very puzzled as to why compiling central was so slow on this machine.This is comparing against a Gigabyte Aero 14 with a gen 6 intel CPU (2.6Ghz i7-6600HQ) vs Dell's 7th gen (2.8Ghz i7-7700HQ)On the Aero 14, compiling central takes 24 minutes. Really, it's theSingle *function* that takes up half that file that is expensive. But interpreters are really hard on compilers.
0 kommentar(er)
