I was looking through the new options available with the 'fsutil' command in
Vista (as you do), and stumbled across this little chap.

fsutil repair

eg

C:\Windows\system32>fsutil repair query c:
Self healing is enabled for volume c: with flags 0x1.
flags: 1 - enable general repair
8 - warn about potential data loss


Is self-healing an indispensable option to keep enabled, or is there a
performance impact involved? Would there any value in disabling it for a
particular volume (and say replacing it with a traditional scheduled
'chkdsk' check)?

I tried disabling it, and didn't notice any immediate catastrophic effect.

Ran across this article which also provides some background.

Self-Healing NTFS
http://technet2.microsoft.com/window....mspx?mfr=true


Thanks for any thoughts.


--
Jon

My comment is: Why would one want to disable a function that helps the
system to run in a more reliable condition?

Guess I am a type of person who just doesn't get human nature.

As I have stated, oh so many times, in these newsgroups: The worst enemy of
any running computer is the person at the keyboard! Cause of errors = 99% of
all known problems

We ask people who have a multitude of problems - "What have you done to
alter your system?" They come back with, "I didn't do anything!"

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I was looking through the new options available with the 'fsutil' command
>in Vista (as you do), and stumbled across this little chap.
>
> fsutil repair
>
> eg
>
> C:\Windows\system32>fsutil repair query c:
> Self healing is enabled for volume c: with flags 0x1.
> flags: 1 - enable general repair
> 8 - warn about potential data loss
>
>
> Is self-healing an indispensable option to keep enabled, or is there a
> performance impact involved? Would there any value in disabling it for a
> particular volume (and say replacing it with a traditional scheduled
> 'chkdsk' check)?
>
> I tried disabling it, and didn't notice any immediate catastrophic effect.
>
> Ran across this article which also provides some background.
>
> Self-Healing NTFS
> http://technet2.microsoft.com/window....mspx?mfr=true
>
>
> Thanks for any thoughts.
>
>
> --
> Jon
>
>

"Richard Urban" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> My comment is: Why would one want to disable a function that helps the
> system to run in a more reliable condition?
>


Thanks Richard.

It does seem to be good thing. I've noticed that a boot time chkdsk runs
much much faster with Vista. Whether that's related to this particular
feature, though, I don't know.



> Guess I am a type of person who just doesn't get human nature.
>
> As I have stated, oh so many times, in these newsgroups: The worst enemy
> of any running computer is the person at the keyboard! Cause of errors =
> 99% of all known problems
>
> We ask people who have a multitude of problems - "What have you done to
> alter your system?" They come back with, "I didn't do anything!"
>

True. Very easy to forget changes that have been made in the past.

I suppose I have a 'need for speed' tendency (of the legal variety) - but
since I've not heard of ,or observed, any major performance hit from having
it enabled, I suspect I'll be leaving it on.


--
Jon

Do you remember Win9x days. If you just pulled the plug on a running
computer you would cause all sorts of damage, up to and including losing the
operating system. You had to sit through a lengthy scandisk that usually did
nothing but destroy your files.

Pull the plug on a computer with either Windows XP or Vista. I have yet to
see any system damage when this is done by mistake.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u%(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Richard Urban" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> My comment is: Why would one want to disable a function that helps the
>> system to run in a more reliable condition?
>>
>
>
> Thanks Richard.
>
> It does seem to be good thing. I've noticed that a boot time chkdsk runs
> much much faster with Vista. Whether that's related to this particular
> feature, though, I don't know.
>
>
>
>> Guess I am a type of person who just doesn't get human nature.
>>
>> As I have stated, oh so many times, in these newsgroups: The worst enemy
>> of any running computer is the person at the keyboard! Cause of errors =
>> 99% of all known problems
>>
>> We ask people who have a multitude of problems - "What have you done to
>> alter your system?" They come back with, "I didn't do anything!"
>>
>
> True. Very easy to forget changes that have been made in the past.
>
> I suppose I have a 'need for speed' tendency (of the legal variety) - but
> since I've not heard of ,or observed, any major performance hit from
> having it enabled, I suspect I'll be leaving it on.
>
>
> --
> Jon
>

True, and progress over the ZX81 where a slight jolt to the machine would
mean complete loss of data, and another 5 minutes loading a 1K program from
a tape recorder. Mind you, you never lost the operating system from that
machine - I'll say that much for it.

--
Jon


"Richard Urban" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Do you remember Win9x days. If you just pulled the plug on a running
> computer you would cause all sorts of damage, up to and including losing
> the operating system. You had to sit through a lengthy scandisk that
> usually did nothing but destroy your files.
>
> Pull the plug on a computer with either Windows XP or Vista. I have yet to
> see any system damage when this is done by mistake.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
> "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:u%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Richard Urban" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> My comment is: Why would one want to disable a function that helps the
>>> system to run in a more reliable condition?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Richard.
>>
>> It does seem to be good thing. I've noticed that a boot time chkdsk runs
>> much much faster with Vista. Whether that's related to this particular
>> feature, though, I don't know.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Guess I am a type of person who just doesn't get human nature.
>>>
>>> As I have stated, oh so many times, in these newsgroups: The worst enemy
>>> of any running computer is the person at the keyboard! Cause of errors =
>>> 99% of all known problems
>>>
>>> We ask people who have a multitude of problems - "What have you done to
>>> alter your system?" They come back with, "I didn't do anything!"
>>>
>>
>> True. Very easy to forget changes that have been made in the past.
>>
>> I suppose I have a 'need for speed' tendency (of the legal variety) - but
>> since I've not heard of ,or observed, any major performance hit from
>> having it enabled, I suspect I'll be leaving it on.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jon
>>
>

Hi, Jon.

Or for the original TRS-80. ;^} You couldn't lose the operating system
because the whole thing (plus BASIC) was in the ROM (4 KB?). And all
programs were safe on their music cassettes - unless they got too close to a
magnet - or the tape drive ate them.

But, Vista IS an improvement over that. ;<)

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(E-Mail Removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail desktop beta in Vista Ultimate x64)

"Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> True, and progress over the ZX81 where a slight jolt to the machine would
> mean complete loss of data, and another 5 minutes loading a 1K program
> from a tape recorder. Mind you, you never lost the operating system from
> that machine - I'll say that much for it.
>
> --
> Jon
>
>
> "Richard Urban" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Do you remember Win9x days. If you just pulled the plug on a running
>> computer you would cause all sorts of damage, up to and including losing
>> the operating system. You had to sit through a lengthy scandisk that
>> usually did nothing but destroy your files.
>>
>> Pull the plug on a computer with either Windows XP or Vista. I have yet
>> to see any system damage when this is done by mistake.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>>
>> "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:u%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> "Richard Urban" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> My comment is: Why would one want to disable a function that helps the
>>>> system to run in a more reliable condition?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Richard.
>>>
>>> It does seem to be good thing. I've noticed that a boot time chkdsk runs
>>> much much faster with Vista. Whether that's related to this particular
>>> feature, though, I don't know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Guess I am a type of person who just doesn't get human nature.
>>>>
>>>> As I have stated, oh so many times, in these newsgroups: The worst
>>>> enemy of any running computer is the person at the keyboard! Cause of
>>>> errors = 99% of all known problems
>>>>
>>>> We ask people who have a multitude of problems - "What have you done to
>>>> alter your system?" They come back with, "I didn't do anything!"
>>>>
>>>
>>> True. Very easy to forget changes that have been made in the past.
>>>
>>> I suppose I have a 'need for speed' tendency (of the legal variety) -
>>> but since I've not heard of ,or observed, any major performance hit from
>>> having it enabled, I suspect I'll be leaving it on.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jon

Thanks RC. Sounds similar.

Funnily enough it struck me after I'd posted that, that in some ways the
current trend is back towards the old fixed rom once again - thinking of the
desire to 'lock down the kernel', the climate of paranoia over system
security etc . After all, despite its limitations, it was *the* completely
secure operating system.

Can't really see things ever regressing completely back to the untweakable
rom, which would be pretty boring to put it mildly, but who knows.

--
Jon


"R. C. White, MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi, Jon.
>
> Or for the original TRS-80. ;^} You couldn't lose the operating system
> because the whole thing (plus BASIC) was in the ROM (4 KB?). And all
> programs were safe on their music cassettes - unless they got too close to
> a magnet - or the tape drive ate them.
>
> But, Vista IS an improvement over that. ;<)
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> (E-Mail Removed)
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> (Running Windows Live Mail desktop beta in Vista Ultimate x64)
>
> "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
>> True, and progress over the ZX81 where a slight jolt to the machine would
>> mean complete loss of data, and another 5 minutes loading a 1K program
>> from a tape recorder. Mind you, you never lost the operating system from
>> that machine - I'll say that much for it.
>>
>> --
>> Jon
>>
>>
>> "Richard Urban" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Do you remember Win9x days. If you just pulled the plug on a running
>>> computer you would cause all sorts of damage, up to and including losing
>>> the operating system. You had to sit through a lengthy scandisk that
>>> usually did nothing but destroy your files.
>>>
>>> Pull the plug on a computer with either Windows XP or Vista. I have yet
>>> to see any system damage when this is done by mistake.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Richard Urban
>>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>>>
>>> "Jon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:u%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> "Richard Urban" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> My comment is: Why would one want to disable a function that helps the
>>>>> system to run in a more reliable condition?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Richard.
>>>>
>>>> It does seem to be good thing. I've noticed that a boot time chkdsk
>>>> runs much much faster with Vista. Whether that's related to this
>>>> particular feature, though, I don't know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Guess I am a type of person who just doesn't get human nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have stated, oh so many times, in these newsgroups: The worst
>>>>> enemy of any running computer is the person at the keyboard! Cause of
>>>>> errors = 99% of all known problems
>>>>>
>>>>> We ask people who have a multitude of problems - "What have you done
>>>>> to alter your system?" They come back with, "I didn't do anything!"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True. Very easy to forget changes that have been made in the past.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose I have a 'need for speed' tendency (of the legal variety) -
>>>> but since I've not heard of ,or observed, any major performance hit
>>>> from having it enabled, I suspect I'll be leaving it on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jon
>