Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18459 > unrolled thread

memory usage vs fan usage

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 15:16 +0100
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-17 12:09 -0400
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:57 +0100
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 03:15 -0400
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 11:59 -0500
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:40 +0100
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 12:04 +0000
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:36 +0100
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:25 -0400
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:54 +0000
              Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 16:16 +0100
              Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 08:17 +0100
                Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 05:14 -0500
                  Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 11:30 +0100
                    Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-24 09:08 -0400
                    Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 20:59 -0500
                      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 07:40 +0100
                        Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 19:13 +0100
                          Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-25 22:29 -0500
                            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-26 10:31 +0100
                              Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-26 15:05 -0500
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:36 +0200
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:56 +0100
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:28 -0400
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 15:07 -0500
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:25 +0200
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 19:30 -0500
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 14:09 +0200
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-18 11:13 -0500
              Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 21:33 +0200
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:12 +0100
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 20:07 -0500
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:24 -0400
          Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 12:08 +0100
            Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-18 18:09 +0000
              Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 19:36 +0100
    Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:29 +0200
      Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:17 +0100
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:19 +0200
        Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:52 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#18459 — memory usage vs fan usage

Both of my laptops have sufficient RAM for what they do
(Win11 Home=16GB, Win11 Pro=32GB) home machine for "home stuff", pro 
machine for "work stuff"

Neither has to do much paging, perhaps peak at 100 faults/sec during 
loading large apps, then calms down to single digits or zero afterwards

It always annoys me that as the amount of memory used (by total 
committed) increases, so does the chance/speed the fans are spinning, if 
the fan use was proportional to paging I'd kind of understand.

Memory chips don't know if part of them is allocated to a process or 
not, right?  Other than maybe some garbage collection, nothing goes 
around flipping bits for fun, right?

So how does being allocated, even when sitting idle, influence cooling 
required?

Anyway, I've always been a bit suspicious of the MemoryCompression 
service, so I'm experimenting with it turned off for a bit.
(powershell disable-mmagent -mc)

And it's the first time in years I have firefox and thunderbird both 
running with no fans in use ... not conclusive yet, but interesting ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#18462

On Thu, 4/17/2025 10:16 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Both of my laptops have sufficient RAM for what they do
> (Win11 Home=16GB, Win11 Pro=32GB) home machine for "home stuff", pro machine for "work stuff"
> 
> Neither has to do much paging, perhaps peak at 100 faults/sec during loading large apps, then calms down to single digits or zero afterwards
> 
> It always annoys me that as the amount of memory used (by total committed) increases, so does the chance/speed the fans are spinning, if the fan use was proportional to paging I'd kind of understand.
> 
> Memory chips don't know if part of them is allocated to a process or not, right?  Other than maybe some garbage collection, nothing goes around flipping bits for fun, right?
> 
> So how does being allocated, even when sitting idle, influence cooling required?
> 
> Anyway, I've always been a bit suspicious of the MemoryCompression service, so I'm experimenting with it turned off for a bit.
> (powershell disable-mmagent -mc)
> 
> And it's the first time in years I have firefox and thunderbird both running with no fans in use ... not conclusive yet, but interesting ...

Makes sense, but the first question you have to ask, is why
the Memory Compressor is sucking cycles, on machines which
are not down to their last byte of memory.

On W10, between 250MB in use all the way up to 1GB in use,
the compressor goes from "railed" at the how end, to barely
doing anything at all on a machine equipped with 1GB of RAM.
I did some tests in a VM, to see how it behaves. This was
back when the Memory Compressor was visible in Task Manager.

You have 16GB or 32GB, and the Memory Compressor should be
taking a snooze in such a case. Only when the memory use is
at 90-95%, should the compressor be picking up again.

On Linux, something called "swappiness" defines some of
the memory management behavior. Linux distros, some of
them start to swap at half full, others allow the OS
to get within 50MB of exhaustion, before doing
something about it. Does Windows perhaps have a similar
policy ?

I used Process Explorer to watch the Memory Compressor, then
ran my malloc64.exe test program (home-brew code), and the
Memory Compressor only started to consume cycles near the
very end of the run. There was no sign of any changed
behavior that would account for your memory compressor
to be running. When you're down to 250MB of memory left,
you should start to see a response.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18465

Paul wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> I've always been a bit suspicious of the MemoryCompression
>> service, so I'm experimenting with it turned off for a bit. 
>> (powershell disable-mmagent -mc)
> 
> Makes sense, but the first question you have to ask, is why
> the Memory Compressor is sucking cycles, on machines which
> are not down to their last byte of memory.
> 
> On W10, between 250MB in use all the way up to 1GB in use,
> the compressor goes from "railed" at the how end, to barely
> doing anything at all on a machine equipped with 1GB of RAM.
> I did some tests in a VM, to see how it behaves. This was
> back when the Memory Compressor was visible in Task Manager.
> 
> You have 16GB or 32GB, and the Memory Compressor should be
> taking a snooze in such a case. 

Is that its defined behaviour, or just what a normal person would hope 
it does?

> Only when the memory use is
> at 90-95%, should the compressor be picking up again.
> 
> On Linux, something called "swappiness" defines some of
> the memory management behavior. Linux distros, some of
> them start to swap at half full, others allow the OS
> to get within 50MB of exhaustion, before doing
> something about it. Does Windows perhaps have a similar
> policy ?

Yes, I'm aware of that "dial"

> I used Process Explorer to watch the Memory Compressor, then
> ran my malloc64.exe test program (home-brew code), and the
> Memory Compressor only started to consume cycles near the
> very end of the run. There was no sign of any changed
> behavior that would account for your memory compressor
> to be running. When you're down to 250MB of memory left,
> you should start to see a response.

I know it doesn't fully hide from taskmgr or procexp, but why does it 
have to hide what it's doing from them?  I mean it must have a .exe or 
.dll somewhere, how much CPU usage does it do behind a curtain?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18477

On Thu, 4/17/2025 2:57 PM, Andy Burns wrote:

> I know it doesn't fully hide from taskmgr or procexp, but why 
> does it have to hide what it's doing from them?  I mean it must
> have a .exe or .dll somewhere, how much CPU usage does it do behind a curtain?

When the Memory Compressor launches, one of the data fields has
an empty string in it, and that seems to prevent Task Manager
from displaying it. It does not stop Process Explorer from showing it
and showing the cycles used.

And as you noted, there is a correspondence between the Hard Fault
statistic, and the level of memory compressor activity. When I attempted
to get an actual Hard Fault statistic, everything was 0. Whereas the
Page Faults in perfmon.msc were measurable (as they're not necessarily
Hard Faults). perfmon.exe /res shows a bunch of 0 values.

   https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/askperf/the-basics-of-page-faults/373120

My naive malloc64.exe program, really doesn't generate any pressure. The memory
usage ramp is relatively constant, there seems to be a "bump" in the behavior
when it hits some sort of reserved section, but the memory compressor
doesn't actually run to any extent. The (compressed) field changes a bit,
and the (compressed) value can change on subsequent runs, but still involves
numbers well below 1GB. Whereas reports of "mischief" find (6GB) for the
compressed field, and the activity seems to go on constantly when it happens.

*******

I can find reports with fairly high (compressed) values in Task Manager.
But no real explanation of why. Apparently something related to search (SearchApp?)
can be responsible for this.

https://www.go-euc.com/performance-value-of-memory-compression/

   "An important note, as shown in the screenshot, when enabling memory compression,
    page combining is also automatically enabled.

    Page combining may help reduce memory usage on servers which have a lot of private,
    pageable pages with identical contents (which is likely to occur on multisession hosts).
    Page combining causes the memory manager to periodically combine pages in physical memory
    that have identical content. The tradeoff for page combining comes in the form of
    increased CPU usage and this may have a negative effect on the scalability and or performance.
   "

PS> get-mmagent

ApplicationLaunchPrefetching : True
ApplicationPreLaunch         : True
MaxOperationAPIFiles         : 512
MemoryCompression            : True   <===
OperationAPI                 : True
PageCombining                : False  <===  Client OS, this is off.
PSComputerName               :

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18463

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Both of my laptops have sufficient RAM for what they do
> (Win11 Home=16GB, Win11 Pro=32GB) home machine for "home stuff", pro 
> machine for "work stuff"
> 
> Neither has to do much paging, perhaps peak at 100 faults/sec during 
> loading large apps, then calms down to single digits or zero afterwards
> 
> It always annoys me that as the amount of memory used (by total 
> committed) increases, so does the chance/speed the fans are spinning, if 
> the fan use was proportional to paging I'd kind of understand.
> 
> Memory chips don't know if part of them is allocated to a process or 
> not, right?  Other than maybe some garbage collection, nothing goes 
> around flipping bits for fun, right?
> 
> So how does being allocated, even when sitting idle, influence cooling 
> required?
> 
> Anyway, I've always been a bit suspicious of the MemoryCompression 
> service, so I'm experimenting with it turned off for a bit.
> (powershell disable-mmagent -mc)
> 
> And it's the first time in years I have firefox and thunderbird both 
> running with no fans in use ... not conclusive yet, but interesting ...

I've never had a box setup where there were thermal sensors and fans on
the memory modules themselves.  At most, I've had heat spreaders on the
memory modules.  The thermal sensors were in the CPU, GPU, PSU, and mobo
that affected changes in fan speeds.  RAM is not a large contributor to
the heat inside the case the fans are to exchange or expel.  Even
spinners generate more heat (when used, of course).

If more RAM is being allocated for non-suspended processes then the more
activity the CPU sees, and it generates more heat.  Some processes
generate lots of CPU heat, like when using Prime95 to burn in a new
build.  More RAM allows more frames/sec in games, so more heat at the
GPU, and probably the CPU, too.  While games may use some page space,
most will preload their textures and objects into memory to up their
performance.  Overclocking also generates more heat from everything
since supposedly you overclock to up speed.  As part of overclocking,
often you have to up the voltage when upping the clock speed, and more
voltage means more power consumed, so more heat.

Use a temperature monitor to look at the temp sensors available in your
setup.  When the fans speed up, look at where was the rise in temps.
That will let you see temperature change for a component (CPU, GPU,
etc), but not cause by process.  You could also monitor CPU usage on
processes to see which are highest when the fans come on.

As far as the memory modules go, yes, the more accesses the more heat.
If accessed, the RAM isn't idle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18464

VanguardLH wrote:

> I've never had a box setup where there were thermal sensors and fans on
> the memory modules themselves.  

I have had memory fans (and they were noisy overkill), not had separate 
temp sensors, but DIMMs can have them on-board, this laptop has 
soldered-on memory,so probably no sensors, but somehow memory usage is 
feeding into fan usage, once it starts there's quite a lag until it 
stops again.

> At most, I've had heat spreaders on the
> memory modules.  The thermal sensors were in the CPU, GPU, PSU, and mobo
> that affected changes in fan speeds.  RAM is not a large contributor to
> the heat inside the case the fans are to exchange or expel.  Even
> spinners generate more heat (when used, of course).

The bottom case is a bit of a pain to take off, or I'd use the thermal 
camera on it, but I think I managed to snap one clip off the case last 
time, so would rather not risk another one just for that.

> If more RAM is being allocated for non-suspended processes then the more
> activity the CPU sees

but CPU can be practically idle (sub 5%)

> and it generates more heat.  Some processes
> generate lots of CPU heat, like when using Prime95 to burn in a new
> build.  More RAM allows more frames/sec in games, so more heat at the
> GPU, and probably the CPU, too.  While games may use some page space,
> most will preload their textures and objects into memory to up their
> performance.  Overclocking also generates more heat from everything
> since supposedly you overclock to up speed.  As part of overclocking,
> often you have to up the voltage when upping the clock speed, and more
> voltage means more power consumed, so more heat.

Maybe, can't keep my eye on 9 temp sensors and my ears on the fans, 
while doing stuff.  I wish fan speed was available in HWmonitor, tehn a 
graph of fans vs temperatures could be drawn, at the moment my best gut 
feel is fans come n when CPU package > 50°C for several seconds and go 
off when it's been under 40° for just a couple of seconds, but it's 
probably more complex than that.  Also in general I feel BIOS revs over 
the years tend to make fans more likely to be on with each rev.

> Use a temperature monitor to look at the temp sensors available in your
> setup. 

HWmonitor sees CPU package/CPU cores/GPU and SSD temperatures, but not 
memory.

> When the fans speed up, look at where was the rise in temps.
> That will let you see temperature change for a component (CPU, GPU,
> etc), but not cause by process.  You could also monitor CPU usage on
> processes to see which are highest when the fans come on.
> 
> As far as the memory modules go, yes, the more accesses the more heat.
> If accessed, the RAM isn't idle.

Yes,  I sort of know that ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18499

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
[...]

[Back to this point:]

> Maybe, can't keep my eye on 9 temp sensors and my ears on the fans, 
> while doing stuff.  I wish fan speed was available in HWmonitor, tehn a 
> graph of fans vs temperatures could be drawn, at the moment my best gut 
> feel is fans come n when CPU package > 50°C for several seconds and go 
> off when it's been under 40° for just a couple of seconds, but it's 
> probably more complex than that.  Also in general I feel BIOS revs over 
> the years tend to make fans more likely to be on with each rev.

  IIRC, SpeedFan [1] can show temperatures (and fan speed). Don't know
if it can do both at the same time. For me (on Windows 8.1) SpeedFan had some
issues that the displayed RPM was inverse to the fan noise (IIRC I fixed
that), but perhaps it's worth to have a look at. IIRC, you don't have to
let SpeedFan control the fan speed, you can just have it show it.

[1] <https://almico.com/speedfan.php>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18500

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>    IIRC, SpeedFan [1] can show temperatures (and fan speed).

Unfortunately HWmonitor, SpeedFan or Lenovo Vantage don't detect any 
fans on this laptop ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18507

On Sat, 4/19/2025 8:36 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
>>    IIRC, SpeedFan [1] can show temperatures (and fan speed).
> 
> Unfortunately HWmonitor, SpeedFan or Lenovo Vantage don't detect any fans on this laptop ...

The three motherboards I have here, can't be read either.

I tried sensors package in Linux, and the same thing. Can't be read.

And Asus AISuite, I don't feel comfortable installing that here.
Windows Defender wanted me to remove an old driver for that.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18509

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
> >    IIRC, SpeedFan [1] can show temperatures (and fan speed).
> 
> Unfortunately HWmonitor, SpeedFan or Lenovo Vantage don't detect any 
> fans on this laptop ...

  You might want to try 'NoteBook FanControl' [1]. It's the one I used
to overcome the problem I mentioned having with SpeedFan.

  It uses configuration files for particular models. I used one for a
model, somewhat similar to the one I had. And IIRC, you can make your
own configuration. So you might be more lucky than with SpeedFan.

  Don't be put off by the 'Control' bit, because you can also just
measure the fan speed (in percentage).

[1] <https://github.com/hirschmann/nbfc>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18510

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>    You might want to try 'NoteBook FanControl' [1]. 

Thanks, I hadn't heard of that one

> It's the one I used to overcome the problem I mentioned having with
> SpeedFan.
> 
>    It uses configuration files for particular models.

The software development looks to have ceased before this laptop was 
manufactured, I tried a few Lenovo Thinkpad and Yoga models in 'read 
only' mode, but it didn't detect anything.

But I think I'm happy enough now that without MemoryCompressor, the 
machine does drop to zero fans within a few seconds of becoming idle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18632

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>    You might want to try 'NoteBook FanControl' [1]. It's the one I used
> to overcome the problem I mentioned having with SpeedFan.
> 
>    It uses configuration files for particular models. I used one for a
> model, somewhat similar to the one I had. And IIRC, you can make your
> own configuration. So you might be more lucky than with SpeedFan.
> 
>    Don't be put off by the 'Control' bit, because you can also just
> measure the fan speed (in percentage).
> 
> [1] <https://github.com/hirschmann/nbfc>

Just a follow-up, I found from reliability monitor that nbfcservice.exe 
was crashing several times per minute, so had to remove it, I also 
removed speedfan and hwmonitor, unfortunately something has left the 
machine prone to bug-checks :-(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18635

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> nbfcservice

https://www.file.net/process/nbfcservice.exe.html

https://github.com/UraniumDonut/nbfc-revive/issues/27

Looks like something you installed (along with Speedfan and HWmonitor),
or maybe it is bundleware that comes pre-installed by whomever made the
notebook.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18636

VanguardLH wrote:

> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> 
>> nbfcservice
> 
> https://www.file.net/process/nbfcservice.exe.html
> 
> https://github.com/UraniumDonut/nbfc-revive/issues/27
> 
> Looks like something you installed

I had hoped it was obvious that nbfcservice.exe is provided by 'NoteBook 
FanControl' suggested by Frank, uninstalling it didn't leave the .exe 
behind, but something is frequently upsetting dwm.exe, making the 
machine unresponsive for 10s f seconds until something crashes, and 
restarts the session.

> (along with Speedfan and HWmonitor),
> or maybe it is bundleware that comes pre-installed by whomever made the
> notebook.

Lenovo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18640

On Thu, 4/24/2025 6:30 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> nbfcservice
>>
>> https://www.file.net/process/nbfcservice.exe.html
>>
>> https://github.com/UraniumDonut/nbfc-revive/issues/27
>>
>> Looks like something you installed
> 
> I had hoped it was obvious that nbfcservice.exe is provided by 'NoteBook FanControl' suggested by Frank, uninstalling it didn't leave the .exe behind, but something is frequently upsetting dwm.exe, making the machine unresponsive for 10s f seconds until something crashes, and restarts the session.
> 
>> (along with Speedfan and HWmonitor),
>> or maybe it is bundleware that comes pre-installed by whomever made the
>> notebook.
> 
> Lenovo.

Maybe the uninstaller on something did not clean up ?

I've seen the odd item using    dir /ah   when inspecting
the folder. I don't see a particular reason for *anyone* to be
making files hidden. Even though Process Monitor puts a hidden
"procmon23..." file in System32 (for boot logging) and does not
remove it later.

Maybe it had a service set up that puts a display in the toolbar
("TrayIconRenderer"). It's possible Speedfan had something like that
concept as well.

If fan controller softwares are being used, two should not be
run at the same time, as the SMBUS master is not thread safe.
Only one "reader" should use that bus at a time, at runtime.
The bus can be corrupted if two programs are running, but
this might only affect the readouts (and behaviors) of the
two programs, rather than crashing the system.

You can use nfi.exe to make a file list. But it does not
do a good job on hardlinked files (it only lists one of the
two filenames such a file goes by). nfi.exe is not thwarted
by permissions (it only reads the $MFT). But Everything.exe
when it lists files,  anything which is "Access denied" won't
get listed, as it reads the $MFT, but it also traverses
the folder tree.

nfi.exe is in this zip, and it would be really "handy" if Microsoft
would re-write this for modern times. I've run into one file
in the $MFT (I was writing a program similar to nfi myself),
that didn't have a $FILENAME, and stuff like this makes me
angry. CHKDSK would not remove it, implying the structure
was <cough> perfectly normal.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150329185738/http://download.microsoft.com/download/win2000srv/utility/3.0/nt45/en-us/oem3sr2.zip

   (administrator command prompt)

   cd /d %userprofile%\Downloads
   nfi.exe c: > nfi-c-out.txt
   notepad nfi-c-out.txt

If you make a backup of C: with Macrium, then mount the C:
partition as K: and tick the "remove file restrictions" tick
box while mounting the .mrimg as K:, then, a program like
Everything.exe should be able to list all visible files.
There will always be a few items, that Macrium will not back
up, so there might not be a pagefile.sys in there for example.
Making a backup using the Macrium CD might get you a little
closer to a thorough backup.

Windows Defender has an "offline scan" it can do, which while
the item is not malware, maybe the suspicious driver list will
find the item.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18649

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> nbfcservice
>> 
>> https://www.file.net/process/nbfcservice.exe.html
>> https://github.com/UraniumDonut/nbfc-revive/issues/27
> 
> I had hoped it was obvious that nbfcservice.exe is provided by
> 'NoteBook FanControl' suggested by Frank, ...

Except the one I found was a different github project, but same exe and
service name.  Both have not been updated in many years.  The one I
found is supposedly a later and updated version of the one Frank found.

https://www.reddit.com/r/laptops/comments/ok2jsu/notebook_fancontrol_has_not_been_updated_since/

> uninstalling it didn't leave the .exe behind, but something is
> frequently upsetting dwm.exe, making the machine unresponsive for 10s
> f seconds until something crashes, and restarts the session.

What theme are you using?  
Start -> theme -> Themes and related settings

Are there critical errors listed in Event Viewer for dwm.exe (Desktop
Window Manager)?  If there are errors, they might identify a source that
is tickling DWM silly.

Have you updated to the most recent version of your video driver?  Since
this is a Lenovo laptop, you should search their web site on your model
(and submodel) to find out what they have for the latest driver.

https://pcsupport.lenovo.com/us/en/products/laptops-and-netbooks/downloads

Try turning off the glitzy visual effects.  sysdm.cpl (System
Properties), Advanced tab, Performance options.  I removed many glitz
options, so mine is Custom.  If you have one of the default configs (let
Windows decide, or best appearance), try using the Best Performance set.

Have you disabled all startup programs to see if the DWM flakiness or
event errors disappear?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18651

VanguardLH wrote:

> What theme are you using?

A custom one, using one of the Bloom wallpapers, but custom accent 
colours and custom mode (dark windows plus light apps) but none of the 
high-contrast options.

Probably not the exact same as before, since before I realised dwm was 
having problems, I had ended-up with black background and reset things
> Are there critical errors listed in Event Viewer for dwm.exe (Desktop
> Window Manager)? 
Yes, but ...

for the two days that I had nbfc installed, there were at least 15 
critical errors per minute from nbfcservice.exe in reliability monitor, 
my reliability went off a cliff from 10 days to 0. however those 
critical errors weren't noticeable.

then after I did notice occasional hangs/resets of dwm, I removed nbfc, 
speedfan and hwmonitor, critical errors show in the logs from dwm.exe 
and systemsetings.exe the following day from lenovovantageaddinshost.exe 
and background task host, powertoys awake

  If there are errors, they might identify a source that
> is tickling DWM silly.

Nothing obvious, but I haven't looked that hard yet

> Have you updated to the most recent version of your video driver?

I updated to the latest WHQL drivers yesterday (Iris Xe v32.0.101.6734) 
history says I was previously on 31.0.101.5085

seems like .6737 was released between me installing .6734 and now, I 
don't normally allow  the intel gfx setting app to install, but this 
time I forgot to say "no", I'll probably wipe the driver and do a clean 
install of the driver from scratch.

No critical errors so far today, but reliability monitor starts a new 
day at 6:00am, it's only 7:30am now, so perhaps not likely the problem 
has gone away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18666

Andy Burns wrote:

> I updated to the latest WHQL drivers yesterday (Iris Xe v32.0.101.6734) 
> history says I was previously on 31.0.101.5085
> 
> seems like .6737 was released [...]
Well, I upgraded to v32.0.101.6737, and double-checked the version 
before rebooting, yet after the reboot, it had downgraded to 
30.0.101.1003, but it's been OK all day, so I'll leave it alone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18690

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> I updated to the latest WHQL drivers yesterday (Iris Xe v32.0.101.6734) 
>> history says I was previously on 31.0.101.5085
>> 
>> seems like .6737 was released [...]
> Well, I upgraded to v32.0.101.6737, and double-checked the version 
> before rebooting, yet after the reboot, it had downgraded to 
> 30.0.101.1003, but it's been OK all day, so I'll leave it alone.

Did you leave Windows configured to automatically update drivers?  That
should be disabled.  Just because Microsoft has drivers on their WU
server doesn't mean those are the best drivers, or even the correct
ones.  What is latest at the WU server may not be what is latest from
the hardware maker.

https://winaero.com/how-to-turn-off-driver-updates-in-windows-update-in-windows-10/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18696

VanguardLH wrote:

> Just because Microsoft has drivers on their WU
> server doesn't mean those are the best drivers, or even the correct
> ones.  What is latest at the WU server may not be what is latest from
> the hardware maker.

Intel and Lenovo have a habit of getting into a driver upgrade/downgrade 
war on both my laptops ... never seemed to happen with Dells, Intel 
always won ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web