Vista and Disable NTFS Time Stamp

Could anyone tell me the default registry value for the "Disable NTFS Time Stamp" function for Vista?
The location is HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem
and the key word is NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate

My value is 1, and that usually means 'enable'. I can't remember changing this feature from 0.

According th Anandtech, this function should not be disabled (should be 0, instead of 1) as it might screw the indexer, the smart defrag, superfetch etc.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=34&threadid=1999401&enterthread=y
Thanks!

 

microsoft documentation stated that there is no such thing as default value of this entry.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/46656.mspx?mfr=true

as vista kernel is based on w2k, it would follow the same representation

could make some sense, but what with this entry that was never present in the first place according to m$ documentation above?

cheers ...

 

Uh generally 1 is true and 0 is false.
So if the key name is "NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate", then 1 would presumably mean disable.

That Microsoft page linked above says the default value is 0. It also says that Win2k doesn't add that key to the registry. I would assume that not having the key there is equivalent to setting the value to 0.

 

Thanks for the replies guys, I'll change it back to 0.
Now I'm wondering why it's changed to 1 in the first place.

 

using some tweaking tool in the past?

cheers ...

 

I don't think so, as I do'nt use any tweaking software. However, most likely it's one of those manual tweak I did in the past

 

My bad, I think it's default from Vista and it's set at 1.

 

i do not see this flag in mine. can some other pure vista users verify this? it will be interesting to know

cheers ...

 

Hmmm, interesting. I checked the registry from someone else's Vista and he also have the entry with the value set to 1. He didn't do anything with the registry.
So yeah, can anyone please verify this as well?
Thanks

 

Nobody? This will be my last bump

 

That's actually a tweak you want, especially on a laptop. Basically, if that is enabled, every time you open any file, the system has to write to the hard drive as well. If you set the flag to 1, it doesn't. There's almost no use for the atime flag other than as a multi-user systems administrator, or someone running some seriously heavy hardware (which basically excludes anyone using a laptop). Leave it as 1, you'll get better battery life and performance.

 

Ah, thanks for the clarification

 

It most assuredly is NOT a tweak you want under Vista. As stated before this link (specifically item 6) tells the tale:
Windows Vista Tweaks/Performance

Here is a direct quote from AnandTech

Gary

 

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. It does help with older NT based OS's, and with Linux

 

I had tried it under NT and 2000 but it was pretty insignificant for me. I Guess if you opened a lot of small files all day it migh make some difference.

Gary

 

maybe because NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate had a different meaning in 2000?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/46656.mspx

 

Fev Reg Tweaks.Make sure to restart after applying this reg values

Disable NTFS Time Stamp,Disable 8.3 names and Last Access

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem]
"NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation"=dword:00000001
"NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"=dword:00000001

Disable Low disk space checks

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer]
"NoLowDiskSpaceChecks"=dword:00000001

 

That would explain the 2000 difference, well actually LACK of a difference. ...big ol' grin...

When I typed NT and 2000 I meant XP and 2000. I am pretty sure that by the time XP rolled around the meaning of the entry was as it is today. But even there I really could not notice any difference in speed. I am sure there was, but the time it would take to update the time stamp is infinitesimal in comparison to the rest of the typical IO going on. I just don't think anyone was ever going to notice it, I sure didn't. I can imagine scenarios where this registry entry had some real use, but not to speed up the machine.

Gary

 

As discussed above the second tweak (NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate) is NOT a good idea. It will totally screw up indexer, the smart defrag and superfetch. This will degrade performance not help it. See my reply #14 above for a link with the details.

Not sure about the other two. But I can't imagine either showing any measurable change in speed, let alone any perceived change. Neither of the operations being disabled occurs often enough or takes long enough to make an appreciable change.

Gary

 

I don't see speed, but I definitely see reduced disk activity. I just don't like the idea of writing to the disk unless I see a use for the access time flags, which is only really applicable to Vista now

 

I'm not using vista search function so i'm not worry about indexer + I'm using Ultradefrag .
BTW never heard about superfetch thing....Let's see.

 

Please do not suggest that particular tweak to other folks, there are lots of "newbies" who will be hurt by its use. See the link I referenced it explains in detail. If you have never heard of superfetch, then you really should not be suggesting that tweak at all. It is a integral part of Vista and definitely not something you want to have screwed up. It will slow things down if it is not working right. I am pretty sure this will also scre up ultradefrag. With the tweak it will also have no idea what files are being accessed when and won't be able to optimize the defrag process.

Gary

 

I know what superfetch doing..Indexing is part of vista search function not supefetch.
BTW How can you say superfetch take benefits from it?

BTW I never disable superfetch service .I like it b'coz it make everything fast

 

Superfetch needs to know how often files are used so it can decide which ones to superfetch. The way it does that uses the last accessed date info. Again, read the article in the link. It explains a LOT.

Gary

 

Ok i read it..Anandtech guys say,

I also have that random disk I/O .
BTW I'll try to disable that reg value and let's see what happen with vista superfetch

 

I'm trying to disable it too, and see how it works.
Thus far, I can start IE, Outlook, Excel, Powerpoint to the point where they are ready for use within 3 seconds.
So I don't think I can notice any big difference there.
We'll see how it affects the boot process.