howtogeek at July 2nd, 2013 09:51 — #1
Originally published at: http://www.howtogeek.com/166911/reliability-monitor-is-the-best-windows-troubleshooting-tool-you-arent-using/
When it comes to hidden gems in Windows, nothing beats the Reliability monitor tool, hidden behind a link inside of another tool that you don’t use either. Why Microsoft doesn’t shine more light on this really useful troubleshooting tool, we’ll never know.
gifi4 at July 2nd, 2013 10:15 — #2
I've always used the event viewer to find any issues when fixing a computer. Provides the same information just a lot of extra work to obtain it.
I follow the logic from House M.D: Why bother talking to the user when they will either lie or not know the answer and do the searching yourself. It's like what was stated, "...there’s no way that person is going to remember the super toolbar awesome game they downloaded last week."
iszi at July 2nd, 2013 10:37 — #3
You can also start Reliability Monitor by running the following command, or use this to create a shortcut:
trsete1 at July 2nd, 2013 10:43 — #4
Thanks for the [perfmon /rel] hint - I couldn't find this tool on my system with a couple of good system search tools.
Now, using that hint at least the days|weeks graph shows up and a details pane is below it. BUT there is NO data on the display. Is this feature turned off on my system? If so, how do I enable it? W7 Ult x64 with updates.
stephen_mann at July 2nd, 2013 11:20 — #5
Easily started from run/reliability
raphoenix at July 2nd, 2013 12:06 — #6
If using SSDs, this is one of the Windows features many recommend to disable if the system is running well.
readmweep at July 2nd, 2013 12:08 — #7
This command returns "This file perform cannot be found."
lynn_jarrell at July 2nd, 2013 12:09 — #8
The Reliability Monitor is a useful tool I am sure. My computer reliability has never been close to 10! My question: How does one Change Group Policy to allow selection in the Problem Reporting Settings? I get the Message, "Some settings are controlled by Group Policy," I opened Group Policy and behold, I could not tell which section to change that would unlock the Problem Reporting Settings allowing me to make a selection other than "Never check for solutions (Not recommended)." I appreciate all help with this!
iszi at July 2nd, 2013 12:44 — #9
perfmon, not "perform".
Perfmon as in Perf-ormance Mon-itor.
readmweep at July 2nd, 2013 13:08 — #10
Ah...oversight on my part. Thank you for clarifying.
readmweep at July 2nd, 2013 13:39 — #11
How do I disable this feature? Does this feature use many resources? What is the benefit of disabling it?
nikk577 at July 2nd, 2013 14:15 — #12
raphoenix at July 2nd, 2013 15:49 — #13
If you are running SSDs, you Can Disable RAC in Scheduled Tasks.
iszi at July 2nd, 2013 15:54 — #14
Sounds like you're not on your own computer - e.g.: using a system that is owned and managed by your employer or school - so you probably shouldn't be touching the Group Policy.
lynn_jarrell at July 2nd, 2013 20:00 — #15
Thank you for your response. No, this is my personal computer.
iszi at July 2nd, 2013 20:16 — #16
Was it ever previously on a domain? Seems odd for settings to be locked out on a personal computer.
82electric at July 3rd, 2013 05:06 — #17
Tks for bringing this topic up!
softsmyth at July 3rd, 2013 14:42 — #18
It's very easy to bring up: just hit the Windows key (brings up search programs) and type in 'reliability'... BANG it's at the top of the list.
homerjayk at July 11th, 2013 08:25 — #19
I have been using this to track an issue I have been having with svchost.exe
The question I have is can you make it refresh to see the latest state and can you drill down to get more information as to what is actually causing the crashes?
jonny_hotchkiss at February 17th, 2014 15:24 — #20
I've JUST discovered this, and can't imagine how often it'll come in handy...
Isn't it presenting a more useful interface from aggregated data?
If you disable disk-related analyses (if excess peeking is detrimental to drive lifespan?) then that should be enough to let ya have ya cake, no?
next page →