The Windows Update slow issue – there is a definitive answer… less a definitive solution

Topic

New Reply

I’m just now catching up on last week’s email, and found this from CH100: I understand that from previous posts your experience with WSUS is limited,
[See the full post at: The Windows Update slow issue – there is a definitive answer… less a definitive solution]

Reply | Quote

Replies

This is gobbledygook to me. Once I see the CPU start going up to 50% for the svchost.exe, I just go to services and stop the Microsoft Update service. Then the CPU goes back down to normal and I get a little red flag that MS Updates are off. Then the next time I reboot, it’s back on again. I plan to just keep doing this for the foreseeable future, and when there are new updates next month and you give the all clear to install, I’ll let it check for new updates and install, then continue to turn off the service. Etc. Etc.

Reply | Quote

Windows Update Service, that is. That’s the one I stopped manually as described above.

Reply | Quote

Why not begin by defining your acronyms?

“Windows Server Update Services (WSUS), previously known as Software Update Services (SUS), is a computer program developed by Microsoft Corporation that enables administrators to manage the distribution of updates and hotfixes released for Microsoft products to computers in a corporate environment.”

Reply | Quote

Good point. And good definition.

Reply | Quote

The issue with Windows update being slow is also related to the specs of your machine. If you have just a dual core processor (hopefully nobody has just a single core, talk about a painful Windows Update experience), expect it to take a couple hours for Windows update just to find what updates you need. Quad core processors are much more efficient and take 30 minutes or less to find the updates you need.

Reply | Quote

Hi Woody,
we were installing security updates and checking the KB#.With your site and M.S.answers. Four of them have never been installed on my PC? We followed all of the previous KB# to when first created.Checked The PC and none were ever installed! All Of these are security updates. Can these ones be explained???
KB 2926765
KB 3039066
KB 3079757
KB 3080446
All of the others I’ve installed.Some took longer.
We just did them one at time and waited until the
Performance Monitor showed little activity.(2to3Hrs).
Always did a restart.Everything so far is fine.
Could you Please or someone else let me know?
Thanks, D.J.

Reply | Quote

If they haven’t shown up on your machine, there’s a reason. Don’t go looking for trouble!

Reply | Quote

i dont think its core related

Reply | Quote

weird woody. The problem is MOST severe using Win7 SP1 x64 and using an old PC with an Intel Pentium D (dual-core) CPU with 2Gb of RAM. I try this on a 32-bit (x86) version of Win7 SP1 (same hardware CPU & RAM config) and the slow WU issue is LESS severe, meaning less time for Windows Update to respond.

Folks try experimenting with the problem using 32bit/x86 and then 64bit/x64 versions of Windows 7 SP1.

Reply | Quote

Hi Woody,
NO,NOOoooo!These were on my PC.
Those were updates were on my Notebook after checking for Win.updates. I never look (ONLINE) for updates. Just to check them. Maybe I wasn’t clear,I’M Sorry!It was some of the Security updates that were there after checking Win.for updates.I’m Just asking why do I get these? I NOW always check the KB# online to see what they are for before installing.
Also(GWX BY Josh M.)Is Installed works great!! THANK YOU JOSH M.!!
Have spent allot of time with M.S.,Bernina, H.P.To
resolve some of my issue’s. All Have FAILED Me!
I Installed a H.P. Mem. stick (4x2G.To 4x4G.)That helped allot!!To handle those Darn PATCHES!
I’ve been using AVG for several years,Is It OK??
I look at your TOP TOOLS! Like allot of them!!
Can MaleWarebites be installed and having AVG?
Also,
Anyone who uses (BERNIA Sewing software)And all other Commercial machines BEWARE!!
I Heard several people who updated to 10 or were corrupted into it are not very happy!!

Woody,And All Of the People on this Forum That have help me. I want To THANK ALL OF YOU FOR the Info.In Helping saving my 3 year Old PC with all of my sewing designs and software!!I now can take Spring classes!!And not feel compromised!!!
Thanks Again,
D.J.

Reply | Quote

My note book is a dual core AMD Win7 SP1x64 8 G. Mem. The desktop is the same.Both downloaded the updates fine. Installing them was quick for Some. Some took allot of time 2 to 4 Hrs. As I said we only installed them one at a time. Until the performance monitor was down to. (CPU o to 2 > Phys.Mem used At 20% and the Networking not loading up).
If I can help any of you at all. I will.Don’t know much! Just Ask what you need. I will try and give you the Info.If it helps. Please let me Know!! All Of you have help me! And VERY Much appreciated!! If I can Help,Just ask.
Thanks,
D.J.

Reply | Quote

EP, generally speaking you would use 32-bit OS on Windows 7 computers with maximum 3 GB RAM and above that amount, you would use 64-bit OS to be able to use all RAM installed. It has mostly to do with the way Microsoft locked the desktop OS running 32-bit to discourage its use and force the industry to migrate to 64-bit architecture than any technical considerations. Does it sound familiar with a more recent attempt to force a certain upgrade?
This is just a rough approximation based only on the amount of RAM, however there may be other considerations like the software which is required to be installed.
Given the considerations above, these days there is little reason not to use 64-bit OS on new computers, so testing on 32-bit OS is more in the realm of hobby than having much practicality.

Reply | Quote

Yes, Malwarebytes can co-exist with AVG.

I don’t like AVG because it begs for money. But if that doesn’t bother you, it’s certainly a decent package.

Reply | Quote

Thank You Woody And ALL of you again for the Info.!!!
This Forum makes my life easier!! So we can get all of the gardens started Instead of messing with this!!
If there is anything we could help you with Please let us know, Please! You have all been very informative and helpful!!! I’ve Recommend (WOODY’S)
Site and Forum to all that I know to get help!!

Now my SIGHTS are set on BERNINA with A steno pad of Questions??? At my next classes.
Thank You all again,
D.J.

Reply | Quote

There are still plenty of 32 bit systems out in the real world. Many people use computers for as long as the hardware works and there is software support instead of flipping computers like leased vehicles.

Reply | Quote

There is an easy and direct solution to the wuauserv (svchost) looping, which has worked on all the systems I’ve tried it on (including Vista!)…

1. Start a Windows Update operation when you go to bed or are not planning to use the computer for hours and hours.

2. Sooner or later, left running in the hard CPU loop, it WILL actually progress and offer you the list of updates. See that computer isn’t blocked from cooling itself well.

3. This is key: When prompted to do updates, make SURE recent security update KB3139852 is selected. This updates the kernel and solves the problem on the next update run.

4. Go forward with the installs, and if you see looping behavior, again GIVE IT TIME TO FINISH. It WILL finish if left alone long enough.

KB3139852 is the key.

Be patient and you will get past this hurdle.

-Noel

Reply | Quote

From my observations it seems to play a factor in it. Low end machines take a long time to get updates (hours), Higher end machines don’t take that long. Now if you have a machine that is behind on updates several months or more than it will take a lot longer to find all the updates but not as long as it would on a lower end machine.

Reply | Quote

Hi Woody, I hope the Easter Bunny was good to you.

Firstly, I must declare that I am not an experienced/trained tester, merely a humble user that is learning heaps from the wonderful contributors to this website; Mr Leonhard, contributors, I doff my cap.

With regard to this Windows Update-speed shemozzle, I just wanted to share an observation I’ve made when cleaning out my W7 SP1 64-bit Home Premium Acer laptop in preparation for a system image backup.
The laptop in question is 9 years old, has an Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 1.66Ghz chip, 4Gb RAM and a 240Gb Crucial M500 Solid-state Drive.
Windows Update is set to ‘check but let me choose’ and not to give Recommended updates the same way as I receive Important ones.
GWX Control Panel is running on Monitor mode.
Over the 6 months I have been reading this site, I have accumulated the following list of WU-related KB#s that I have uninstalled and hidden prior to this instance:
2990214 / 3065987 / 3075851 / 3083324 / 3083710 / 3102810 / 3112343 / 3135445 / 3138612

In the state described above, prior to Disk Cleanup, I have found that when I (infrequently) manually checked for updates it took anywhere from 15 minutes to a couple of hours to run. However, when I ran Disk Cleanup – Clean System Files I noted that I had several Gigs in the Windows Update Cleanup (WUC) category. I don’t recall if I ever ran WUC since I upgraded my laptop form Vista to W7 about 18 months ago, but since I took the opportunity to remove these several Gigs this time I have been running WU manually this past week as an experiment and it now takes a minute to complete, 2 minutes tops.
This weekend I also endeavoured to W10-proof my brother’s newer Samsung laptop (Intel Core i7, 8Gb Ram, 500Gb HDD) for the first time. He had 7Gb on this Windows Update Cleanup, which I removed prior to doing a system image backup for him too. Running WU manually several times since then has resulted in a running time similar time to mine, 1-2 minutes.

I bow to the knowledge of those more experienced than me on this site, this may just be pure conincedence, but I thought that this experience was worthy of a mention.

Reply | Quote

Anybody have an idea?

Reply | Quote

It is correct that a single core machine would take forever to update in the initial stages or never complete the process. The speed of the CPU might make a difference as the calculations take place in CPU and RAM, never using disk unless paging heavily. Later versions of the WU client use less RAM which is good for systems with less RAM installed, but are not optimized for speed better than older versions. On Intel CPUs which are fast enough, I can’t say that beyond 2 cores there is much difference, as those 2 cores do not peak or rarely do for very short periods.

Reply | Quote

I don’t have a problem with 32-bit machines, it is just that the world is moving fast and the speed of change seems to be more important than the quality of change and because the new code is not made as efficient as it should be, you cannot expect comparable performance from systems with less RAM. It is just a fact of life outside of our control.

Reply | Quote

It is not a coincidence. The Disk Cleanup is supposed to remove obsolete updates which would make the calculations of the WU algorithm easier for the system. If it makes such a significant difference I cannot tell but in theory it is very possible.

Reply | Quote

I see both yours and Eric’s points, ch100. It’s just that I’m testing in ALL different versions of Windows.

Only time I use 32bit Windows is because I still use some legacy hardware on another PC (an old Creative Ensoniq ES1371 sound card made at the end of the 20th century) that don’t have any 64bit drivers and only have 32bit drivers.

The Windows Update “slow” or forever problem seems to be A LOT WORSE with Windows Vista SP2, both 32bit & 64bit editions that I tested last night on a custom built PC with different hard drives, taking several hours for Windows Update to respond to Vista SP2. Though I may try Noel’s solution to install the KB3139852 (MS16-034) security update.

I did make a comment in an old post about the WU-takes-forever problem that I am moving up to either Win8.1 or Win10 by 2017 for those PCs that are still using Vista/Win7.

Reply | Quote

Running Disk Cleanup and letting the tool also clean Windows Update has made absolutely NO difference. It still runs like an old dog and takes hours.

Reply | Quote

So you are saying that a dual-core cpu will take as much time as a quad-core?

Reply | Quote

This is what I think, unless the 2 cores are already at 100% let’s say for slower CPUs in which case 4 CPUs would make a difference. I don’t have slower CPUs available to test this assumption unfortunately. If your experience if different, I think it is useful to post here, as not everyone has the same hardware.

Reply | Quote

EP and Eric, please see my answer in context. I said that Microsoft is making it hard for those with desktop Operating Systems on 32 bit in the sense that they blocked the full use of RAM for systems with more than 3 GB, more or less depending a little on the hardware design. This is done through complex licensing and protected files, as in a technical sense, the equivalent server OS can make full use of PAE, which is 36-bit addressing of RAM at the CPU level. The maximum addressable RAM by the server OS on 32 bit becomes 64 GB.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-au/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx
Now I feel that we are getting to deep technical issues far beyond the scope of this site

Reply | Quote

What Noel Carboni says! Update KB3139852 fixed it on two Win 7 boxes for me!

These are two very different Win7 Pro setups. One is on a modern 3rd gen Intel Core i3 (Ivy Bridge) PC, and the other is on a 10 year old Pentium 4, single core PC, that was recently wiped and clean installed with Win 7 Pro and updated to SP-1 with the latest security updates.

The only thing that is common between these two PC’s was the admin, me, and the witholding of the optional updates, along with several important updates.

As soon as I downloaded and updated KB3139852, my update delays went away, and everything performed normally.

Reply | Quote

Hi,

Windows 7, x64 system

My original post is here:
https://www.askwoody.com/2016/the-windows-update-slow-issue-there-is-a-definitive-answer-less-a-definitive-solution/#comment-78724

1. Is there anything “bad” about stopping the Windows Update Service as I described when svchost.exe starts using 50% of the CPU?

2. I have noticed that after I’ve done that on some occasions, the physical memory usage starts going up and and up and up. It got to as high as 95% (even though I had stopped Windows Update service in Task Manager twice, a second time after it turned back on at some point), and I finally rebooted my laptop and got a warning when I was doing so about… shoot, I can’t remember. Something about a breach or limit, I assume regarding the physical memory. Any thoughts?

3. KB3139852 is one of the two patches Woody is saying not to install.
WOODY: Should we install this now?

4. I still have not updated from IE 9 to IE 11, as I am nervous about it causing problems or installing those Windows 10 ads (as I’ve yet to have those show up for me). I don’t use IE (I use Firefox). I understand that supposedly Windows uses IE in some ways even if you don’t use it as a browser. But I wanted to get more thoughts on this and if it is a concern that installing IE 11 will cause any headaches at all or come with those Windows 10 ads, etc.? Or if doing so could cause me more issues since my system is already acting wonky as described…? (I really don’t want to have to install the GWX thing and have to deal with all that headache on top of everything else.)

5. I have also noticed that after the batch of Updates prior to the most recent, my laptop will hang occasionally on shutdown and I will have to hard shut down by holding the power button. Not sure why this would be?

Thanks for the help!

Reply | Quote

Quick response (while I’m waiting for the Build conference keynote)….

1. Nothing bad, as far as I know, about stopping Windows Update service. I’m still not completely comfortable with it, and haven’t recommended it in general, because I don’t know of all the side-effects.

2. No idea.

3. I’m ambivalent about KB 3139852. I haven’t seen any exploits. It’s an “elevation of privilege” fix – which means a bad guy has to be logged on to your system already, before they can take advantage of the hole.

4. You need to upgrade to IE 11, keep IE 11 patched, and NEVER USE IT. Windows uses components of IE. There’s no way around it. Those components need to be updated.

5. No idea – could be a lot of things.

Reply | Quote

@Jack,

Have you done a Disk Cleanup and then a Defrag recently? If not, do so. It should help. I do it at least once a week and every time after an install, including security updates.

And before you do Disk Cleanup and Defrag, download-install-run CCleaner to get rid of all the temp crap. Top shelf product and it’s free.

Remember, use CCleaner first (customize your settings), then Disk Cleanup and then Defrag.

http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner

Reply | Quote

For older CPU’s it does seem to make a difference. An old model such as the Hp dx2400 dual core with 4 GBs of ram takes a while. Now if you were to compare a machine with an Intel i3 to a machine with an i7 processor, I agree that you wouldn’t see much difference in this case.

Reply | Quote

“3. I’m ambivalent about KB 3139852. I haven’t seen any exploits. It’s an “elevation of privilege” fix – which means a bad guy has to be logged on to your system already, before they can take advantage of the hole. ”

From personal experience, installing this patch [KB 3139852] corrected the high CPU and long delay with Windows Update when checking for new patches on my two Win 7 PC’s.

I have heard that this also worked for a few other people experiencing long update delays.

Just to be safe, I took a backup image before updating, but nothing broken after … all is good now

Reply | Quote

I think that by not allowing Windows Update to complete its lengthy routine, there are good chances to corrupt the database and the structure of the updates on disk.
When you restart the service in the middle of the operation, it will start the svchost.exe process all over again when Windows Update is scheduled to run next, so no real benefit here. You can work around this by setting the WU on Never check for updates, without disabling the service and not causing negative side-effects.
At this point, it may be worth running sfc /scannow as Administrator from a Command prompt and if any corruption is found, also run CheckSUR https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/947821
This appears to be an update, but it is only a scanning and repairing tool. Be aware that the CheckSUR download is large.
For which updates to install or not to install, Woody has all or most of the answers.

Reply | Quote

I ran the check and the result was:

Windows Resource Protection did not find any integrity violations.

…so I guess I’m good on that front?

Also, what are your thoughts on updating from IE 9 to IE 11? I understand that like Woody is saying that there are components for Windows that are part of that, but I’m just concerned it’s going to screw up this old laptop of mine, and wonder if it’s better not to mess with it…

Thanks for the help!

Reply | Quote

I’m going to go ahead and install this one to see if it helps.

Also wanted to ask you (as I did to another poster further below), what are your thoughts on updating from IE 9 to IE 11? I understand that like Woody is saying that there are components for Windows that are part of that, but I’m just concerned it’s going to screw up this old laptop of mine, and wonder if it’s better not to mess with it…

Thanks for the help!

Reply | Quote

Just a quick reply about the Windows Update service, because this tends to be a recurring item which is of interest for a lot of people.
In the old times this process used to be part of the Windows kernel and it was not good practice to have it disabled. The supported method was to set Control Panel to the equivalent of Never check for updates.
In newer operating systems which include Windows 7, Windows Update service runs as part of one of the svchost.exe processes under the Network Service account and in theory could be stopped as any other program without side effects. This is practised as part of professional optimizations to reduce the resources used by the system, one that comes in mind is the Citrix Optimization Tool for virtual desktops. Citrix is a very innovative and highly regarded company which has very close ties with Microsoft.
Even so, I think a better practise is to use the officially supported tools if they exist and in the case of Windows Update that means setting updates to Never check for updates instead of stopping the service and leaving the service as default – Automatic (Delayed).
In Windows 10 things are different and this is subject to another discussion.

Reply | Quote

Windows Resource Protection did not find any integrity violations.

…so I guess I’m good on that front?

Excellent

IE9 to IE11? Same thoughts as Woody.
I am one of those who use IE a lot, probably mostly for professional reasons and I am familiar with most of its quirks and configuration.
I think you have few options:
– If you intend to actually use IE, you will find that a lot of sites have dropped or will drop support for older versions which makes it easier for the web administrators to support those sites.
– If you do not intend to use IE and have concerns about breaking your system, then I don’t see much benefit in applying selectively various security updates. IE is indeed part of Windows and you can either make an informed decision and stop updating completely – set to Never check for updates, or keep as secure as possible and trust Woody’s research and good advice. I would go for the last option.

PS Even if your laptop is old, if it supported Windows 7 initially it should cope with any of its updates.

Reply | Quote

Not that I don’t trust his advice. Been following it for years. Just cautious and a bit nervous. I’ll update it. Thanks!

Reply | Quote

Installed the KB update. Waiting to see if the long CPU high usage scenario happens again.

Will most likely install IE 11 next. Just being cautious.

Reply | Quote

This worked. Have not had the high CPU svchost.exe issue since installing this update. Not sure why it’s recommended not to install, but this seems to be the solution to this months long issue. Thanks.

Reply | Quote

You da man Noel!

I bit the bullet and installed KB3139852, there were four patches left to be installed – the largest being IE11 (28mb).

After restarting I selected the next patch (8mb), within 5-10 mins it had downloaded and installed, right before my eyes! IE11 and the remaining patches went through quite quickly as well.

I hope against hope it stays like this.

…Thanks again Noel.

Reply | Quote

Amazing enough, Woody had this explained in December 2013 in relation to Windows XP. There are significant differences between the Windows XP and the Windows 7 update mechanism but for this issue, the root cause is still the same and known for a long time.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2609615/microsoft-windows/microsoft-promises-to-fix-windows-xp-svchost-redlining–as-soon-as-possible-.html
Woody says: ‘It keeps running longer and longer and longer, with the amount of processing time going up exponentially in relation to the number of Internet Explorer patches that have been rendered obsolete.’

Reply | Quote

First of all, a very big thank you to Woody for this site, which is undoubtedly THE place to come to find about MS’s latest antics!

OK, so here’s what happened to me re Windows Updates. Around the 8th March all three of my machines running Win7 Starter and Home Premium, (after different Defender definition updates) mysteriously stopped checking for new updates, which of course usually happens daily, I was also seeing up to 50% CPU constantly. The only thing obvious in the Win Updates Log, was that on shutdown, it consistently said ‘Warning Failed To Filter Search Results’ with error 0x8024000b. So working with one machine – and over many days, I made sure that WU, BITS etc., were all set correctly in Services, disabled my AV and firewall, ran Win Update Automated Troubleshooter, ran an Error Check, ran KB971058 Fixit, ran System File Checker, tried to run SURT but it got stuck, renamed Catroot2, renamed Software Distribution, and entered into the Run box Cmd /c ren %systemroot%System32Spupdsvc.exe Spupdsvc.old – which is supposed to fix the 0x8024000b error. I may have forgotten the odd Fixit, but you get the picture!

At this point I was clutching at straws, so manually downloaded the latest Update Client KB3138612 – nothing. Finally, I came upon Noel Carboni’s post suggesting KB3139852 as a fix for other WU woes, so not really expecting it to work, I downloaded it, and after watching the CPU usage dancing up and down for 20 minutes, it suddenly dropped to around 2% and stayed there – also, upon opening the updates page – joy of joys, there were 14 important and 5 optional updates waiting – I’d never been so happy to see new updates!! The 0x8024000b warning in the Updates Log had also gone.

I then tried KB3139852 on the other 2 machines, and it fixed them too. Note that for anyone else with this issue, you must stop WU in Services before trying to do the manual downloads, otherwise it says ‘searching for updates’ forever and they won’t install. An added bonus is that instead of ‘Downloading Updates’ sticking at 0% for up to 2 hours, it (for now anyway) only takes 10-15 mins!

So many thanks to Noel for discovering that KB3139852 has hidden talents, but what I can’t figure out, is why a ‘Security Update for Windows Kernel-Mode Drivers to Address Elevation of Privilege’ would fix this, and indeed, why did all three machines suddenly stop checking for updates in the first place!

Reply | Quote

The main and likely only reason why KB3139852 appears to fix a lot of issues for a lot of people is that it supersedes 29 other updates which has a huge effect of effectively cleaning the database and the Windows Update algorithm of the superseded updates. This places a lot less load on the svchost.exe which needs to calculate all the supersedence interrelations as part of scanning for new updates. There is also a possibility in specific situations that one of those 29 superseded updates was incorrectly or incompletely installed in the past and KB3139852 effectively makes them obsolete and inactive as long as KB3139852 is installed and as such repairing the Windows Update mechanism, but this is only speculation.
Everyone with a WSUS installation can verify which updates are superseded by KB3139852 and their number.

Reply | Quote

it’s back, doing the same thing hours of CPU Abuse, fresh install of win 7 Ultimate RTM x64 on an HP Pavilion G6 1.6GHz Quad Core A6-3420m
which does auto OC via AMD TurboCore up to 2.5GHz
RTM does updates instantly, install SP1 and required to take an update to the update agent, this pushed out WUAU Agent version 7.6.7600.320 to the system, it was 20 hours before it released all the RAM it ate, and stopped the CPU abuse to inform me of 212 updates up to July 2016, got the system up to date in batches, after the first batch WUAU didn’t eat CPU and RAM as much, and now it’s Aug. and it’s back doing the same thing with the new updates
hours of CPU and RAM abuse.

Reply | Quote

Have you tried this?

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3105605/microsoft-windows/2-easy-steps-to-speed-up-windows-7-update-scans.html

Reply | Quote

The biggest difference is not that the CPU has more cores, but that those cores likely process instructions faster and it has a larger cache. If the CPU has to go to RAM for information, that still takes some time, though far less than if it had to touch the disk.

Adding more cores doesn’t help that much if the program is not designed to use them. But the newer CPUs also tend to be better in general.

Reply | Quote