Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vista Runs Out of Memory While Copying Files

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the how-hard-can-it-be dept.

Bug 661

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."

cancel ×

661 comments

Maybe this stems from... (0, Redundant)

crowbarsarefornerdyg (1021537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20998945)

The Excel bug.

Re:Maybe this stems from... (5, Funny)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999007)

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"?

Re:Maybe this stems from... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999111)

Or if you divide 16400 by 8.2 you get 2000. Hey, it's a Y2K bug!

Re:Maybe this stems from... (0)

feepness (543479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999561)

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"?
Wow! What are the odds... like one in a million.

No more going back to XP? (5, Funny)

dtouchet (1065652) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999025)

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.

Re:No more going back to XP? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999233)

> 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.

Re:No more going back to XP? (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999347)

14,600K is 16,385.

Just kidding, don't do the math.

(Although I actually just did thinking "Am I on to something?" Darn!)

Re:Maybe this stems from... (1)

Seismologist (617169) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999045)

No, it stems from the "16,400 is more than what you'll ever need" argument.

This isn't a bug! (1)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999099)

It's a feature!

Re:Maybe this stems from... (5, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999269)

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.

Re:Maybe this stems from... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999467)

Where are you shopping? Most computer manufacturers still offer Windows XP instead of Vista as an option on their computers.

Re:Maybe this stems from... (2, Insightful)

LokiSnake (795582) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999501)

You know you can opt for a Macintosh. With Leopard coming out and all. Plus, if you *need* Windows, it is just a reboot away or something.

That's OK then (4, Funny)

Sub Zero 992 (947972) | more than 6 years ago | (#20998957)

the box I "make use of" has just 15,000 mp3s...

Re:That's OK then (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999373)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Windows fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Windows box (a Core 2 Duo w/4 Gigs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Sempron 3100+ running Ubuntu Linux, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Window box, the same operation would take about 2 seconds. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Mozilla Firefox will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Notepad is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Windows computers, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Windows box that has run faster than its Linux counterpart. My Pentium III/700 with 128 megs of ram runs faster than this quad-core 2.2GHz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Windows is a superior OS.

Windows addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Windows over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:That's OK then (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999543)

But what about the 1,401 album images?

Aha! This is probably why.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20998965)

This is probably why Bill Gates had Vista kicked out of Nigeria!

Billy G says (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20998971)

16k files should be enough for everybody.

Oblig.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999101)

Nothing to see here people, move along.

Re:Billy G says (5, Informative)

Seismologist (617169) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999155)

Found the quote on wikiquote [wikiquote.org] :

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.

Welcome to Windows Vista (5, Funny)

TJ_Phazerhacki (520002) | more than 6 years ago | (#20998975)

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

Re:Welcome to Windows Vista (1)

TellarHK (159748) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999085)

... and grief counseling.

Cake, and grief counseling. Far more appropriate. I just switched my primary desktop to Vista this past weekend (More a "Why the hell not, gotta learn it to support it -someday-) resignation, and have seen that after it's patched... Vista's still a buggy bastard. I haven't seen Explorer shit itself as frequently as I have this past three days since Windows ME.

Re:Welcome to Windows Vista (2, Interesting)

newgalactic (840363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999105)

That's one of the funniest sigs I've read in a while. btw, I'm also a born-again Christian.

Re:Welcome to Windows Vista (2, Insightful)

lattyware (934246) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999215)

That's one of the funniest sigs I've read in a while. btw, I'm also a born-again Christian.
That's one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

Re:Welcome to Windows Vista (4, Funny)

QuantumPion (805098) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999245)

the cake is a lie
the cake is a lie
the cake is a lie

and you will be baked (nt) (1)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999471)

Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)

Figures... (3, Insightful)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 6 years ago | (#20998985)

And that is one of many reasons we are all still running XP

Re:Figures... (3, Insightful)

z0M6 (1103593) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999457)

Or simply left windows behind.

Actual info... (1, Informative)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#20998987)

From TFA:

...occurs when a Vista user (running Kaspersky Anti Virus 6 or 7) tries to copy a large number of files (~16,400).
So if you're like most people in the world, and have never touched Kaspersky AV (or Vista, for that matter), then this is a non-issue.

Re:Actual info... (5, Informative)

Phil246 (803464) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999057)

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).

Re:Actual info... (1, Informative)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999241)

Even spending 5 seconds googling this issue would tell you that this only occurs when the user is running Kaspersky. The blogger that posted about this added his two cents in, which is factually incorrect.

Re:Actual info... (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999341)

If it is *just* kapersky that causes the problem, then why is MS issuing a hotfix instead of kapersky?

Re:Actual info... (0, Redundant)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999359)

Because - it is a Windows bug. However, few other apps besides Kaspersky triggers it.

Re:Actual info... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999479)

However, few other apps besides Kaspersky triggers it.
Two posts up this thread you were saying that only Kapersky triggers it and you were criticising the submitter for not realising that. Now you say that a few other apps also trigger it. Care to change your story again?

Re:Actual info... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999291)

so does the "hotfix" fix the kernel leak or just this particular instance?

Re:Actual info... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999319)

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.

Re:Actual info... (0)

_14k4 (5085) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999133)

You've got to wonder if it is the AV software, scanning each file as it is copied, that is having the issues...

Re:Actual info... (4, Informative)

philg8 (64645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999197)

The underlying problem is a Windows OLE component memory leak. Microsoft has a hotfix for the issue at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942435/en-us [microsoft.com]

OLE mem leak; only affects 'extended attrib' files (5, Informative)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999209)

According to the cited "hotfix" link, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942435/en-us [microsoft.com] , 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.

Vista (1, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20998993)

When I copy a bunch of files from one directory to another, I get 'Explorer has stopped working and must restart'. I've resorted to using DOS to copy the files. I wish I had stuck with 2000 Server :)

Honest question (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999093)

Why did you switch from a server class version to a desktop version of an operating system? Sounds like a bad choice in the first place.

Re:Honest question (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999239)

I still use the server, but only for development work. I wanted a "family" computer for letting the wife and kids play on without worrying about what would get screwed up when I was in the middle of playing with something.

Doing something as simple as using a crossover cable to transfer data between the two turned into a nightmare as the "very intelligent" windows explorer dropped me to under 100K/sec download speeds. I have never seen anything so slow since the 90's.

Re:Honest question (0)

jZnat (793348) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999283)

Possibly has to do with how the kernel is compiled for the different versions. A server kernel would use a fair scheduler for instance while a desktop one would want something that is more responsive (and quite possibly realtime in the case of audio/video applications) to user applications. At least that's how it works in the open source world...

Re:Honest question (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999403)

A server kernel would use a fair scheduler for instance while a desktop one would want something that is more responsive (and quite possibly realtime in the case of audio/video applications) to user applications.
Why can't a single kernel do both, with classes of processes for throughput or latency? I'd imagine that you want low latency in a live streaming audio or video server.

Re:Vista (4, Interesting)

Strudelkugel (594414) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999113)


I have 13K+ music tracks on a backup disk. If I try to copy them with the Explorer UI, it does nothing - No error message or anything. I reverted to Robocopy, which works fine. You must be doing the same thing. Doesn't anyone at Microsoft have a big music collection to copy, or do they just use their Macs and iPods for that? ;-)

Re:Vista (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999387)

I use xcopy mainly, simply because I'm sufficiently familiar with all the command line arguments that I don't have to hunt down a help file. Explorer is okay for some things, but it's a rather shitty file manager all in all.

Re:Vista (-1, Troll)

mymaxx (924704) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999157)

Congratulations! You have either a problem with your file system or your Windows installation. I move files around all the time and Explorer never crashes. Scan your file system, repair your installation or reinstall.

Re:Vista (2, Interesting)

The13thSin (1092867) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999343)

Actually, unless you use the new robocopy under vista, this will not negate the problem listed in the article (I know, cos I've known of this problem for quite some time in Vista). I think your error has to do with something else.

Re:Vista (1)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999475)

once more we have the typical error diagnostic under windows: "i think your error has to do with something else" (don't worry, i'm not poking fun at you, i'm just poking fun at the ridiculousmess of this sentence).

Just wondering... (-1, Flamebait)

Korveck (1145695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999011)

...why would anyone want to copy 16400+ files?

The answer is porn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999083)

Copying 25,360 files of porn into a Tivo share folder.

Re:Just wondering... (3, Informative)

808140 (808140) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999115)

Maybe you're backing up to an external hard drive?

Re:Just wondering... (1)

TimothyDavis (1124707) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999117)

I don't think your average user would do this.

I have learned that copying files using the UI in Vista is a very painful thing to do - even if you don't have 16K+ files.

Heaven forbid you ever extract files from a cab you found on the internet - it will ask you for confirmation for every single file, without the option of 'yes for all'.

Re:Just wondering... (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999187)

Yes It will. It is called 'do the same for all files' or something similar. Apparently the old style confirmation was too simple.

Re:Just wondering... (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999485)

I believe the poster is referring to working within 1 cab file, not for all cab files...

It's either none or all it seems.

Re:Just wondering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999371)

Why is this flamebait? This is a good question.

Cumulative copies! (1)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999027)

I was thinking "big deal", who copies that many files at once?

Then I read it's cumulative between reboots! I can imagine this will hit many servers that have any kind of auto-copy job they do on a schedule.

Re:Cumulative copies! (5, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999073)

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

Re:Cumulative copies! (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999119)

It only appears to affect full copying with GUI. xcopy, that actually uses quite a bit of the underlying API, seems not to be affected. Although it IS possible to script jobs through COM objects and the shell, I don't think any sanely configured server will have it done that way.

I'm a little suspicious (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999253)

The reason being is I've setup a Vista system and copied about 100,000 files (totaling about 60GB) drive to drive in a single operation, without error. So while I'm not saying this isn't a Vista error, I'm wondering what else has to be done to trigger it. The persisting across reboots, even if you break it down smaller really makes it sound like another program is somehow interfering with the copy. I'll have to mess around with it at work, we have Vista test machines and Cadence installs north of 250,000 files when you install its libraries. I know it installs fine, though that isn't a copy strictly speaking as it is files being extracted from archives.

I'm just wondering if perhaps there isn't more to this than just "OMG Vista runs out of memory!" If it is a memory issue, why then haven't I encountered it, doing far larger amounts of files?

Re:I'm a little suspicious (4, Informative)

coolnicks (865625) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999497)

KB 942435:

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.
Its only files with streams, and apparently kaspersky makes it wose by that fact that it tags every single file with a stream.

Refresh of an oldie... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999031)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Vista fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Vista PC (an Intel Core 2 Duo w/4 gigs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my ancient Mac running OS 9, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Vista PC, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Firefox will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Notepad is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Vista PCs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Vista PC that has run faster than its Mac OSX counterpart, despite the Vista PC's same chip architecture. My 286/12 with 2 megs of ram runs faster than this 2.4ghz mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Vista is a superior operating system.

Vista lovers, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Vista over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:Refresh of an oldie... (1, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999257)

God what an ass kiss! I mean, read that post in the context of Slashdot:

I don't want to start a holy war here
And...

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems
And...

Vista lovers, flame me if you'd like...
I'm sorry, but if you where not going for "holy war", than you where going for what essentially constitutes a Slashdot Blowjob. Zero meaningful content, AC.

Re:Refresh of an oldie... (1, Redundant)

mymaxx (924704) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999287)

You have a problem either with your installation or with something you've installed. I run Vista on my Dell XPS, with a C2D, 3 GB RAM and I can complete multiple DVD size copies in the same amount of time. Perhaps you haven't installed the reliability fixes they released recently?

Re:Refresh of an oldie... (1)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999545)

if we suppose that reliability fixes will solve this problem, i'm just amazed that a problem this blatant could make it through quality control.

Re:Refresh of an oldie... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999425)

Beautiful - got some bites too. Warms the cockles of this Mac lover's heart.

It's because (5, Funny)

zsouthboy (1136757) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999035)

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

kdawson = suspect (-1, Troll)

newgalactic (840363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999041)

...haven't done any research, but I've been tricked by kdawson before. As far as I'm concerned, kdawson = "suspect".

Re:kdawson = suspect (-1, Offtopic)

newgalactic (840363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999219)

How is this modded "Offtopic"? The story was submitted by kdawson. Calling into question the source shouldn't be considered "offtopic".

Re:kdawson = suspect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999337)

easy...kdawson modded it..

16400+ files ? Let me guess ... (1, Funny)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999043)

... the exact number is 16384 ?

How much Ram does Vista POS DRM System need?? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999061)

How much Ram does Vista POS DRM System need??

Re:How much Ram does Vista POS DRM System need?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999437)

Joe takes the special bus to school.

Good thing? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999095)

but that 'often there is little indication that file copy operations haven't completed correctly.'
I would think this is a good thing.

Re:Good thing? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999395)

No, it's not. When the file copy operation has failed, but you get little feedback that a failure has occurred, that's a very bad thing.

Chris Mattern

Exxon Val-Vista (3, Funny)

roadkill_cr (1155149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999097)

Oh, the fools! If only they'd built it to let you copy 16,401 files!

It's NEVER too late to UPGRADE to XP !! (1)

Jerry (6400) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999121)

Just about everyone is.

Only when running Kaspersky (0, Redundant)

Mopatop (690958) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999145)

Before the flamethrowers fly, people should note these lines from TFA:

"occurs when a Vista user (running Kaspersky Anti Virus 6 or 7)"

"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)."

Re:Only when running Kaspersky (1)

Phil246 (803464) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999173)

where in those two quotes, or tfa does it say "only when running kaspersky"?

Re:Only when running Kaspersky (1)

mymaxx (924704) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999323)

TFA is wrong. Read the MS support page.

Who uses copy? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999185)

We have directory structures with millions of files. Any type of large copy operation on large amounts of files on every version of Windows completely sucks. Try right clicking on and selecting properties on a directory with over 30000 files, it will take about 30 minutes to get a response and the time seems to increase exponentially with the file count. I assumed anyone that copied large amounts of files on an NTFS partition with Windows gave up on the gui copy function years ago. We did, robocopy was our answer. When we need rough information about size or file count for large directories, I go to the log files of our backup system and get the information there.

Now this specific issue or bug adds to the existing problems using copy.

Really? (1)

beatmania (1136353) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999195)

I just recently moved over 20,000 files from one drive to another, both drives are SATA drives (using Vista Enterprise, Japanese version) and I didn't have a problem...I assume that this bug was found on English Vista.....anyone else using another region's Vista have this problem?

Re:Really? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999511)

The files must include extended attributes to trigger this bug. I guess your's did not have those.

What about those of us who need high performance? (2, Funny)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999203)

I want an OS that lets me re-organize my pr0n anytime I want. I *need* to be able to select 50K-100K files at a time and move them from place to place without slowdowns. Ever try, in Windows, to search your network for all the *.jpg files, select a few hundred thousand of them in the search window, and drag them to the new firewire disk you just plugged in? It's painful, lemme tell ya.

Anybody want to suggest an OS that would work for me? I'm serious.

Re:What about those of us who need high performanc (1)

Parag2k3 (1136791) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999375)

Linux. For all of your pr0n handling needs.

Just how much RAM does Vista need to function? (-1, Flamebait)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999207)

...Compared to a 128MB Windows 2000 installation which could copy many thousands of files without any issues?
vis-ta -noun
1. a view or prospect, esp. one seen through a long, narrow avenue or passage, as between rows of trees or houses.
2. such an avenue or passage, esp. when formally planned.
3. a far-reaching mental view: vistas of the future.
4. an incompetently tested piece of crap operating system, excelling at the creation of user headaches and unnecessary IT expenses.

Is this related to the playing music and network.. (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999213)

Is this related to the playing music and network file copy slow down bug as well?

Of course file management is secondary... (3, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999223)

.. when your GUI is using 2 gigs of RAM.

Re:Of course file management is secondary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999259)

...and the DRM is using another 2 Gig.

Bullshit. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999227)

I call sensationalist bullshit. I just moved 20000+ files across a network connection to my Vista laptop about 2 or 3 hours ago without the hotfix applied. Memory usage does not appear to have increased at all from the typical baseline, and all files are present and accounted for.

Even though I plan to slap Ubuntu on this laptop the moment I hear linux has perfect power management support for it, I still have given Vista a fair shake. Methinks this has little to do with Vista itself and more to do with antivirus products sucking, as they always have. I've got no love for an industry that can only keep itself afloat by never perfectly solving the problem it exists to solve.

Same as NT (1)

Vadim Makarov (529622) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999297)

When I discovered a similar bug in Windows NT eight years ago (incomplete copying a large directory tree, silent), I installed FAR [farmanager.com] and haven't bothered with using Windows Explorer for any important stuff ever since. It makes me glad skills learned years ago are still useful: I'm using FAR in Vista.

Re:Same as NT (1)

rbanzai (596355) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999365)

Hmmm... FAR appears to be Norton Commander.

I loved Norton Commander when I first used it in the 1980s. It was so easy to use, and fast.

Amazed (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999307)

Amazing that Microsoft are so short-sighted that they don't consider this important enough to include the fix in SP1.
Think of the potential loss of important files just because this thing doesn't report when it fails.
OK 16400 is a lot of files but its not unrealistic number. Just my windows directory alone has about 15800 files (not that I would want to copy it).
I just hope this bug directly adversely affects enough managers that make purchasing decisions to drive a few more to adopt Linux as a company-wide platform instead of windows.

So they use 14 bits for the file indexes? (1)

9gezegen (824655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999333)

2^14 is 16384, so Vista uses 14 bits in its for loop for copy. The question is why? even signed integers are 15 bits in old systems so are they using 1 bit for other purpose?

Re:So they use 14 bits for the file indexes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20999439)

even signed integers are 15 bits in old systems so are they using 1 bit for other purpose?

Knowing Vista, probably some DRM-related dealie.

not 16,400 (2, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999351)

Very probably it's 16,384, as in 2^14. I'm sure it was a hardcoded limit. So typical, Microsoft... so typical.

suspicous number (0, Redundant)

msblack (191749) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999361)

16400 is supiciously close to 16,384 or 2^14.

How much effect does Kaspersky have? (1)

RootWind (993172) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999409)

Did it make it 10-fold worse? 100-fold? 1000-fold? Did they just not have enough files to find out what the limit for just the kernel leak without KAV is?

Bad summery (5, Informative)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999411)

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.

Re:Bad summery (1)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999515)

Sorry, hit submit before finishing my comment. The article also states that the problem lies in the Kernel, but it seems to only pop up with this one antivirus program.

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).

Not Just Vista (4, Insightful)

cmacb (547347) | more than 6 years ago | (#20999431)

I don't think there has ever been a version of Windows that could deal with large numbers of files. Particularly if you are using the GUI interface. The whole thing is a toy operating system, really.

A few years ago, while investigating a similar problem with a production server (a SERVER not a client machine) the machine would gradually grind to a halt doing the copy, while still responding (but slowly) to other operations.

I found that the "copy" command did much better than a drag and drop operation, but still would have a problem eventually. Finally, I found that this was a known problem, and that to solve it, a dedicated MS employee had written a utility called "robocopy" the "robo" not being for "robot", but for "robust" (really, it said that!).

Using that usually got the job done, much more slowly than it should have, but at least I didn't have to re-boot the machine daily to clear things up.

Now that Gates is too busy with other things to take tours of the data center, really, Microsoft should do itself a favor and ditch the VMS underpinnings of Windows (some of which they have probably forgotten how to maintain) and build your nice GUI on top of BSD or something similar. That way you won't break your budget (in manpower and electricity) trying to match the Google server farms.

Once that's done you will have the experience needed to do the same on the desktop. You will be doing the world, and yourselves a favor. Thanks in advance!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...