PC Review


Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread

The Value Of Self-Healing

 
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      29th May 2007
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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard Urban
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      29th May 2007
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
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      29th May 2007
"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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Urban
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      29th May 2007
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
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      29th May 2007
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
>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
R. C. White, MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      30th May 2007
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
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/(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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      30th May 2007
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

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VBA IIf(myCell.Value = Array(myCell2(1).Value, myCell2(2).Value,myCell2(3).Value,myCell2(4).Value) ,"OK","No Match) EagleOne@discussions.microsoft.com Microsoft Excel Programming 2 24th Apr 2009 11:25 PM
TextBox1.value=TextBox2.value-(TextBox3.value+TextBox4.value) helmekki Microsoft Excel Programming 1 15th Oct 2004 04:15 AM
TextBox1.value=TextBox2.value-(TextBox3.value+TextBox4.value) helmekki Microsoft Excel Programming 2 15th Oct 2004 12:32 AM
TextBox1.value=TextBox2.value-(TextBox3.value+TextBox4.value) helmekki Microsoft Excel Programming 2 14th Oct 2004 05:23 AM
Comparing a cell value to a range value and display a matched value =?Utf-8?B?QWxiZXJ0IFNpbQ==?= Microsoft Excel Programming 0 27th Jan 2004 05:21 AM


Features
 

Advertising
 

Newsgroups
 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM.