The Value Of Self-Healing

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Jon, May 29, 2007.

  1. Jon

    Jon Guest

    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/windo...3668-4e15-b7ad-4df0f6e6805d1033.mspx?mfr=true


    Thanks for any thoughts.


    --
    Jon
     
    Jon, May 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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/windo...3668-4e15-b7ad-4df0f6e6805d1033.mspx?mfr=true
    >
    >
    > Thanks for any thoughts.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jon
    >
    >
     
    Richard Urban, May 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jon

    Jon Guest

    "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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
     
    Jon, May 29, 2007
    #3
  4. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:u%...
    > "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> 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
    >
     
    Richard Urban, May 29, 2007
    #4
  5. Jon

    Jon Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:u%...
    >> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>> 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
    >>

    >
     
    Jon, May 29, 2007
    #5
  6. 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

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail desktop beta in Vista Ultimate x64)

    "Jon" <> wrote in message
    news:#...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:u%...
    >>> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%...
    >>>> 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
     
    R. C. White, MVP, May 30, 2007
    #6
  7. Jon

    Jon Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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
    >
    > Microsoft Windows MVP
    > (Running Windows Live Mail desktop beta in Vista Ultimate x64)
    >
    > "Jon" <> wrote in message
    > news:#...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:u%...
    >>>> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%...
    >>>>> 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

    >
     
    Jon, May 30, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    300
  2. Coord
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    257
    Coord
    Dec 22, 2006
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    249
    Guest
    Dec 22, 2006
  4. Jupiter Jones  [MVP]

    Re: FYI:Self built PCs not supported by Microsoft of Moduslink w vista

    Jupiter Jones [MVP], Dec 22, 2006, in forum: Windows Vista General Discussion
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    312
    Jupiter Jones [MVP]
    Dec 23, 2006
  5. Synapse Syndrome

    Re: FYI:Self built PCs not supported by Microsoft of Moduslink w vista

    Synapse Syndrome, Dec 22, 2006, in forum: Windows Vista General Discussion
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    261
    Synapse Syndrome
    Dec 22, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page