Learn about longtime user Rowby Goren and his great contributions to the site. We explore his method for posing questions that are likely to yield a solution, and take a look at how his career transformed from a Hollywood writer to a website entrepreneur.
DISM commands. What am I missing?
ref: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh824869.aspx
The descriptions seem the same.
1. "to check for corruption"
2. "check the image to see whether any corruption has been detected"
I'm sorry if my English is TOO GOOD but these say exactly the same thing.
What I've always wondered is why would one not just go ahead and run /RestoreHealth and skip /scanhealth or /checkhealth?
To check if an image is repairable
1. Scan the image to check for corruption. This operation will take several minutes. For example, at a command prompt, type the following command:
Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /ScanHealth
2. Check the image to see whether any corruption has been detected. For example, at a command prompt, type:
Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /CheckHealth
When you use the /CheckHealth argument, the DISM tool will report whether the image is healthy, repairable, or non-repairable. If the image is non-repairable, you should discard the image and start again. If the image is repairable, you can use the /RestoreHealth argument to repair the image.
The descriptions seem the same.
1. "to check for corruption"
2. "check the image to see whether any corruption has been detected"
I'm sorry if my English is TOO GOOD but these say exactly the same thing.
What I've always wondered is why would one not just go ahead and run /RestoreHealth and skip /scanhealth or /checkhealth?
Do more with
EXPERT OFFICE® is a registered trademark of EXPERTS EXCHANGE®
ScanHealth takes longer
https://www.windowscentral.com/how-use-dism-command-line-utility-repair-windows-10-image
To your point, I no longer bother. If I think I need to run it at all, I just run RestoreHealth
https://www.windowscentral.com/how-use-dism-command-line-utility-repair-windows-10-image
To your point, I no longer bother. If I think I need to run it at all, I just run RestoreHealth
/scanhealth and /checkhealth arguments can help you to decide if you need to use /RestoreHealth. I think /RestoreHealth itself can cause problem if something go wrong during repairing (replacing).
I have not had RestoreHealth go wrong during repairing unless the system is so badly broken it needs to be rebuilt.
If you read my link, the only difference is speed. Check apparently does less work than Scan but otherwise they are the same and really don't bother. Just run Restore when you need it.
/CheckHealth only check whether the image has been flagged as corrupted.
/ScanHealth only scan the image for component store corruption. This option does not fix any corruption.
/RestoreHealth to scan the image for component store corruption, perform repair operations automatically, and records that corruption to the log file. This generally takes 15-30 minutes depending on the corruption and size of the partition.
Source:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-update/system-file-check-sfc-scan-and-repair-system-files/bc609315-da1f-4775-812c-695b60477a93
/ScanHealth only scan the image for component store corruption. This option does not fix any corruption.
/RestoreHealth to scan the image for component store corruption, perform repair operations automatically, and records that corruption to the log file. This generally takes 15-30 minutes depending on the corruption and size of the partition.
Source:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10-update/system-file-check-sfc-scan-and-repair-system-files/bc609315-da1f-4775-812c-695b60477a93
I'm sorry, my original question didn't actually ask the question I had hoped to ask: "what is the difference functionally?"
i.e. How do the end results differ?
But, certainly, if we start with the hypothesis that they ARE THE SAME as the documentation suggests, then that one is faster is interesting and belies the conclusion that they are the same.
And, that there are two of them, that also suggests that they are not the same.
So, it appears that Scan must be doing something in addition to Check - and the question about functionality remains unanswered.
Here's a hypothesis:
"Scan does more than Check but we see the results of the difference so infrequently that we conclude they are the same as a practical matter."
I'd still like to know "what more?" as in "what difference?"
If the answer has no practical significance then at least we know with more certainty.
I believe that John Hurst has lots of experience with these tools. Right? So his observations over a large sample set is valuable.
Perhaps I should leave it there.
Oh! Now I see Ramin's response. That makes sense to me. I don't see anything in the documentation about flags. Where did you get that Ramin? I don't see any duplication.
i.e. How do the end results differ?
But, certainly, if we start with the hypothesis that they ARE THE SAME as the documentation suggests, then that one is faster is interesting and belies the conclusion that they are the same.
And, that there are two of them, that also suggests that they are not the same.
So, it appears that Scan must be doing something in addition to Check - and the question about functionality remains unanswered.
Here's a hypothesis:
"Scan does more than Check but we see the results of the difference so infrequently that we conclude they are the same as a practical matter."
I'd still like to know "what more?" as in "what difference?"
If the answer has no practical significance then at least we know with more certainty.
I believe that John Hurst has lots of experience with these tools. Right? So his observations over a large sample set is valuable.
Perhaps I should leave it there.
Oh! Now I see Ramin's response. That makes sense to me. I don't see anything in the documentation about flags. Where did you get that Ramin? I don't see any duplication.
Your summary says what we said in brief . The only substantial difference is length of time. Otherwise the same. And my view based on a lot of personal experience is that you do not need to bother scanning. - just repair
Ramin's reference also says this;
[This is probably as clear as we're going to find I'd guess].
And, it says:
You can run Check, then Scan, but you should always run RESTORE HEALTH
Which is what John Hurst has suggested.
Good enough.
Thanks!
You can run scanhealth & restore health at the same time like thisSo, as I understand it, one checks for flags and the other checks for corruption (more directly?)
DISM.exe /Online /Cleanup-image /Scanhealth && DISM.exe /Online /Cleanup-image /Restorehealth
[This is probably as clear as we're going to find I'd guess].
And, it says:
You can run Check, then Scan, but you should always run RESTORE HEALTH
Which is what John Hurst has suggested.
Good enough.
Thanks!
Premium Content
You need an Expert Office subscription to comment.Start Free Trial