Slashdot Mirror


Vista Runs Out of Memory While Copying Files

ta bu shi da yu writes "It appears that, incredibly, Vista can run out of memory while copying files. ZDNet is reporting that not only does it run out of memory after copying 16,400+ files, but that 'often there is little indication that file copy operations haven't completed correctly.' Apparently a fix was scheduled for SP1 but didn't make it; there is a hotfix that you must request."

23 of 661 comments (clear)

  1. Billy G says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    16k files should be enough for everybody.

    1. Re:Billy G says by Seismologist · · Score: 5, Informative
      Found the quote on wikiquote:

      I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the upper 384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is why they talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the software, in any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the microprocessor. That thing generates addresses, 20-bits addresses, that only can address a megabyte of memory. And, therefore, all the applications are tied to that limit. It was ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address base for applications within--oh five or six years people were complaining.
      --
      ~ In Trust, We Trust ~
  2. Welcome to Windows Vista by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 5, Funny

    At the end, there will be free therapy. And Cake!

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
  3. Re:Maybe this stems from... by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't it a little odd that if you strip off the first and last digits of the number "16,400", it's 640, as in 'no one needs more than 640k"?

  4. No more going back to XP? by dtouchet · · Score: 5, Funny

    M$ is scared that people will try to copy their documents to another computer before reverting back to XP. Smart, very smart Micro$oft! On a tech note, what kind of number is 14,600? I would have thought 16,384 would be better.

    --
    void r() { printf("recursion is "); r(); }
    1. Re:No more going back to XP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > I would have thought 16,384 would be better.

      It probably is 16384.

      "16400" is clueless technical writerspeak for "The developer said '16,384', and the style guide says to use three significant digits".

      (Alternate explanation: "The developer said '0x4000', and the style guide says 'convert to decimal' as well as 'if it's not a round number, use three significant digits'")

      There are enclued technical writers, but 16400 is so close to 16384 that it makes me suspect that the author of the MSKB article isn't one of them.

  5. It's because by zsouthboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    they can only send 16,000 files to the RIAA and MPAA to check, at once.

  6. Re:Actual info... by Phil246 · · Score: 5, Informative
    actually, fta:

    Although the problem occurs where users are running Kaspersky security products, it's a kernel leak that lies at the root of problem (the problem's not confined to systems running Kaspersky software, that just that this application seems to exacerbate the issue).
  7. Re:Cumulative copies! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are using Vista as a server, you pretty much deserve what ever happens to you.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  8. OLE mem leak; only affects 'extended attrib' files by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 5, Informative
    According to the cited "hotfix" link, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942435/en-us , the problem is due to an OLE memory link when dealing with files that have "extended attributes".

    This problem occurs if the following conditions are true:
      * The files include extended attributes.
      * You copy lots of files in a single operation.

    CAUSE
    This problem occurs because of a memory leak in the Windows OLE component. This memory leak is triggered by the way that Windows Explorer deals with the extended attributes of the files.

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  9. Re:Maybe this stems from... by purpledinoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How the F%$^ can this be a problem? A file copy is a simple operation. There's simply no excuse for this... This should have never been a problem in the first place. What pisses me off is that I need to buy a new laptop, Vista is now forced down my throat, and I have no option to get XP pre-installed.

  10. Re:Actual info... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the bug is in the shell, not the kernel and only files with altnerate data streams trigger the leak. The KB article that Adrian links to states that very clearly, but he's been on an anti-Windows rampage lately that's blinded him to the facts.

    Very few files have data streams, so the vast majority of users won't ever see a problem. Kaspersky choses to pollute every single file with a stream, however, which is why systems with it installed exhibit the problem.

  11. Bad summery by gravis777 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Apparently the submitter skimmed the article, and decided to post up a Vista bash on Slashdot.

    FTA:

    The "Out of Memory" error (which is affectionately known at the PC Doc HQ as the "Out of Cheese" error ... don't ask why ...) is one of the biggest and most baffling of Vista's file handling problems has been occurs when a Vista user (running Kaspersky Anti Virus 6 or 7) tries to copy a large number of files (~16,400) Apparently its just a problem with this antivirus program running in Vista. I move large amounts of files around in Vista quite often (granted, its Vista 64), sometimes well over 20,000 files at a time, and have never run into this issue.
    1. Re:Bad summery by Zebra_X · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lol the TFA is FUD. Read the HOTFIX notes which explains that the issue is with Windows OLE (NOT part of the kernel) and files that utilize extended attributes. Note that the crappy AV product adds extended attributes to all of your files (which i'm sure speeds up every file operation on your PC), thus with a kapersky infected computer - you are assured to have the problem. With "normal" files it's unlikely you will have this issue. Media files and the new office files are more likely to pose a problem than your standard files.

      The article does not state clearly wether physical memory is a constraint.

  12. Re:Maybe this stems from... by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

    and then you take the 640, divide by 2, get 320, remove the last 0, and get 32, the reverse of 23.

    Then you multiply 23 by 30, get 690, take 42, reverse it to 24 and subtruct this from 690. You get 666.

    What does that tell you? Ha? Ha?

  13. For those that aren't getting the joke... by n+dot+l · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The original rant may be found here.

  14. Re:Maybe this stems from... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Funny

    What does that tell you? Ha? Ha?

    You've got too much time on your hands?

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  15. Re:Actual info... by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Funny

    only files with altnerate data streams trigger the leak

    Well that's what you get for crossing the streams. Egon warned us. Kaspersky's risking total protonic reversal. I guess they were fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing.

  16. Oh quit whining by downix · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is a minor problem, absolutely rare event, occurs with next to no regu...

    **OUT OF MEMORY ERROR, SYSTEM HALT**

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  17. Re:Maybe this stems from... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can make XP croak as well copying huge files from a CD or floppy which is handles very very badly (see 98). And my biggest drive is 20G (albeit a damn fast one). It seems to do ok copying big files from hard disk to hard disk but even with SCSI RAID with huge caches and the correct drivers you can't expect much left of your CPU when its doing this. Do two at once and you may as well go rebuild your transmission while you're waiting. Apparantly DMA and interrupts are unknown concepts at Redmond; PDP-11's did this just fine (unless you turned off DMA and interrupts in which case it was no faster than a 4Mhz Z-80 CP/M system)

    Actually, a lot of the problems I've noticed with XP is related to the stupid fucking way that Windows handles it's file cache. It will literally swap out PROGRAMS YOU ARE ACTIVELY USING to expand the file cache during a large copy/read operation.

    Anybody that has ever tried to alt-tab while copying huge files knows about this.... then you sit and wait for the pages to be swapped back into memory. And you might as well get some coffee, cuz with the hard drive already being pegged for the copy operation, it's gonna take awhile. Oh, and once it's finally done and you need to alt-tab back to the original program.... well, hope you need more coffee.

    Lately I've been playing with a program called CachemanXP. Google it. It seems to give you more control over the memory and process management functions of Windows. It also lets you do a 'kill -9' equiv, which (as far as I'm aware) even Task Manager won't do, as it insists on trying to do a graceful shutdown first.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  18. Re:Maybe this stems from... by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, it's more like 90 / 90000, but you're only a few orders of magnitude off.

    Not necessarily his fault, maybe he used Excel to calculate it...

  19. Not really that simple in Vista... by kwabbles · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not a simple operation. Think about how a file copy works within Vista:

    1. The file is opened.
    2. The file is scanned for viruses.
    3. The file is scanned for adware.
    4. The file is scanned for DRM violations.
    5. The user is asked if they're really sure they want to copy the file.
    6. The user is asked again if they're sure they want to copy it.
    7. The OS makes a judgement on how long it will take to copy so it can update the pretty stats in the gui.
    8. Lots of flashy graphics and widgets are loaded to show you a pretty animation while you wait.
    9. The file is copied.
    10. The destination file is verified that it is intact.
    11. The destination file is scanned for viruses.
    12. The destination file is scanned for adware.
    13. The destination file is scanned for DRM violations.
    14. The file is successfully copied.

    Hell - I'm surprised their OS can even handle copying 1,600 files, let alone 16,000.

    --
    Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
  20. Re:Maybe this stems from... by Nosklo · · Score: 5, Funny

    why the heck does Windows need to scan directories to be deleted before deleting them is beyond me (...) Same thing for copying, Windows wastes time scanning the source directory for no apparent reason since it won't tell you you have insufficient disk space to complete the operation The scan is to know beforehand the size and number of files before copy/delete operation, so windows can make a <sarcasm>VERY RELIABLE</sarcasm> progress bar, with a <sarcasm>VERY RELIABLE</sarcasm> estimated time that <sarcasm>ALWAYS</sarcasm> measures correctly the time left for the operation to complete.
    --
    find -name "*base*" -exec chown us {} \; ; ln -s /dev/zero /dev/chance ; make time