Removable Storage Manager? Should I rip it out?

[fdv]

This isn't a question of "does anyone know what this is and can I delete it?"

This is "I know exactly what this does, and before I take it out of my fileset, does anyone need it?"

It's for access to heavy-duty media like tape drive libraries and multi-CDRom units. (This is NOT "media" in the usual sense. This is large-scale stuff that probably no one uses anymore.)

RSM is eliminated in Windows 7 and Server 2008. I know of zero applications that use it.

~800kb of filespace and who knows how much memory it took as a service.

And by the way... I actually used to use some performance snapins, but I don't much anymore. Get rid of those, too?

Anyone else ever play with WBEM like I used to? I don't anymore, and therefore have no need of WBEM personally.

Edited May 11, 2009 by fdv

[Martin H]

My vote goes for ditching both, thanks!

[Brabant]

I don't see I'd use WBEM or RSM.

used to use some performance snapins

These are enabled in current sets? Or are to be enabled by the user?

I usually use much lighter (yes, older) computers than most. So this tends me to say "Keep!".

[Ambassador]

It's for access to heavy-duty media like tape drive libraries

Which are slow, cumbersome, and not worth the effort.

and multi-CDRom units.

Is this as obvious as it sounds? I have computers with more than one CD Drive.

Otherwise, I also agree with its removal. Every kilobyte counts.

[jimmsta]

and multi-CDRom units.

Is this as obvious as it sounds? I have computers with more than one CD Drive.

Otherwise, I also agree with its removal. Every kilobyte counts.

Multi-cdrom units are cd changers and cdrom libraries. RSM is useful if you're using media managment within the MMC snap-in, but aside from that, it's pretty worthless. KB's are KB's, and more services = more memory. I say strip it out.

[fdv]

These are enabled in current sets? Or are to be enabled by the user?

The capability to use performance counters was in. They are not all active. I used to measure some aspects of system performance but I know it's super rare among users.

I usually use much lighter (yes, older) computers than most. So this tends me to say "Keep!".

Just to be sure... you say you don't use them but then say keep, you mean delete them, yes? I gained a good bit of speed in my virtual machine removing the RSM service. I think finally killing WBEM off might yield another speed increase. It would save a few megs of space for certain. I can assure everyone that WBEM is not used for any software but is handy for Windows-only computer management tools over the network. That probably never applied to anyone but me and I don't bother with it anymore.

Is this as obvious as it sounds? I have computers with more than one CD Drive.

Doesn't apply. This refers to things like external units with 10 built in drives that cost $1,000, stuff like that. USB/IDE/EIDE/SATA etc drives are not included.

Sounds like a go, then. Some WBEM files are necessary of course, but it's about 3 of them, IIRC. I'll use TXTSETUP to place them so that the WBEM directory can be empty.

[Brabant]

you say you don't use them but then say keep, you mean delete them, yes?

I don't use stuf that measures performance. Yes let RSM and WBEM go.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Brabant

[tommyp]

If it means anything, I have been running without wbem and rsm for quite some time and haven't noticed any issues. (I don't use FDV's fileset.)

[fdv]

If it means anything, I have been running without wbem and rsm for quite some time and haven't noticed any issues. (I don't use FDV's fileset.)

HAHAHA He's just kidding folks he uses the fileset, of course! He'd never use anything else like his own files! Never ever!

Elbows Tom

Shhh!