Use DISM to Repair Windows 10 Image  

EDITED--PRESERVING NEW OR MOST IMPORTANT DETAILS:
[Winver says I have Windows 10 version 1511 (OS Build 10586.545)]
.........
CHECKING HEALTH:

Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.10586]

C:\WINDOWS\system32>Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /CheckHealth

Deployment Image Servicing and Management tool
Version: 10.0.10586.0

Image Version: 10.0.10586.0

The component store is repairable.
The operation completed successfully.

.........
ATTEMPTING TO RESTORE HEALTH FROM ORIGINAL INSTALL USB--TWO WAYS:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth /Source:esd:F:\Sources\Install.esd:1 /limitaccess
...
Error: 0x800f081f

The source files could not be found.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth /Source:esd:F:\Sources\Install.esd:1
...
Error: 0x800f081f

The source files could not be found.

---------
ATTEMPTING TO CLEAN UP:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>Dism.exe /online /Cleanup-Image /StartComponentCleanup
...
The operation completed successfully.

---------
CHECKING TO CONFIRM CURRENT STATUS:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>sfc /scannow
...
Windows Resource Protection found corrupt files but was unable to fix some
of them....

---------
TRYING FROM INSTALL USB AGAIN, ANOTHER VARIANT

C:\WINDOWS\system32>Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth /Source:F:\Sources\Install.esd
...
Error: 0x800f081f

The source files could not be found.

---------
AT THIS POINT I DOWNLOADED FRESH ISO IMAGE FROM TECHNET, AND IN THIS CASE COPIED THE INSTALL.WIM FILE TO ANOTHER USB STICK ON F: UNDER A SOURCES FOLDER:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth /Source:wim:F:\sources\install.wim:1 /limitaccess
...
Error: 0x800f081f

The source files could not be found.

......
SCANNING AGAIN:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /ScanHealth
...
The component store is repairable.
The operation completed successfully.

----------
CREATED A DVD FROM THE ISO--AND TO CONFIRM, I GOT WimInfo FROM THE DVD --DVD-ROM DRIVE IS E:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>dism /get-wiminfo /wimfile:E:\sources\install.wim
...
Details for image : E:\sources\install.wim

Index : 1
Name : Windows 10 Pro
Description : Windows 10 Pro
Size : 14,747,431,455 bytes

Index : 2
Name : Windows 10 Home
Description : Windows 10 Home
Size : 14,586,404,734 bytes

The operation completed successfully.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>dism /get-wiminfo /wimfile:E:\sources\install.wim /index:1

Deployment Image Servicing and Management tool
Version: 10.0.10586.0

Details for image : E:\sources\install.wim

Index : 1
Name : Windows 10 Pro
Description : Windows 10 Pro
Size : 14,747,431,455 bytes
WIM Bootable : No
Architecture : x64
Hal : <undefined>
Version : 10.0.14393
ServicePack Build : 0
ServicePack Level : 0
Edition : Professional
Installation : Client
ProductType : WinNT
ProductSuite : Terminal Server
System Root : WINDOWS
Directories : 19070
Files : 103878
Created : 7/16/2016 - 8:05:47 AM
Modified : 7/16/2016 - 8:06:29 AM
Languages :
en-US (Default)

The operation completed successfully.

----------
RUNNING DISM NOW FROM THE DVD

C:\WINDOWS\system32>DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth /Source:wim:E:\sources\install.wim:1 /limitaccess

Deployment Image Servicing and Management tool
Version: 10.0.10586.0

Image Version: 10.0.10586.0
...
Error: 0x800f081f

The source files could not be found.

----------
AFTER MOUNTING THE ISO ITSELF AS F, AND RUNNING DISM THERE, TWO VARIANTS:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth /Source:wim:F:\sources\install.wim:1 /limitaccess
...
Image Version: 10.0.10586.0
...
Error: 0x800f081f

The source files could not be found.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth /Source:F:\sources\install.wim:1 /limitaccess
...
Error: 0x800f081f

The source files could not be found.

----------
GETTING WimInfo FROM THE ISO:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>dism /Get-WimInfo /WimFile:F:\sources\install.wim
AND:
C:\WINDOWS\system32>dism /Get-WimInfo /WimFile:F:\sources\install.wim /index:1

ALL WimInfo AND INDEX 1 DETAILS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE DVD

No replies as yet, so perhaps I need to apologize for writing so much in the previous 2 posts. This thread has continued to be active--I figured I could post here and get a response. I attempted to summarize what still was not working for me, but I now see there are many, many posts/threads on these problems with fixing SFC & DISM corruption, and the "opencl.dll" display driver issue--I also have that in my cbs.log, although it does not account for why DISM won't find my source file and make a repair. Many have dealt with this for a long time, but I have yet to find a way yet to get the DISM repair to work even once.

Here is what is still not clear to me:

Can someone tell me, is it ESSENTIAL to use an ISO or source for install.wim that is not only the same bit (x86 or x64) and Pro or Home, but also is the exact same BUILD as my OS? What I downloaded from TechNet is labled as Win10_1607_English_x64.iso. My current version is: Version: 1511, Build 10.0.10586.545 I know 1511/10586 is a version and build that many have found SFC corruption and "opencl.dll" display driver problem with. Can I use the WIM file from Version 1607 as my repair source? I have not yet seen a clear statement about this, and I didn't see a list of Versions/Builds at TechNet site.

Second, I tried using the install.wim 1) as source directly off a DVD, 2) with the WIM file copied to a USB stick, and 3) directly from the ISO with the ISO mounted as a disk. One often suggested idea I have not tried yet is copying the file to my desktop folder. Could that make the crucial difference in DISM finding the source file?

Lastly, is 1607 the Anniversary updated version of Win 10? Would I perhaps be better off to just do an in-place upgrade with the 1607 DVD I made, rather than try again to repair my 1511--would this accomplish two things?

Michael

Can someone tell me, is it ESSENTIAL to use an ISO or source for install.wim that is not only the same bit (x86 or x64) and Pro or Home, but also is the exact same BUILD as my OS?

Yes.
Version: 10.0.10586.xxx

One often suggested idea I have not tried yet is copying the file to my desktop folder. Could that make the crucial difference in DISM finding the source file?

No.

Lastly, is 1607 the Anniversary updated version of Win 10? Would I perhaps be better off to just do an in-place upgrade with the 1607 DVD I made, rather than try again to repair my 1511--would this accomplish two things?

Yes it is.
Not sure.. but it might be an option if you can get your windows up enough to run the inplace upgrade from. Make a backup before you try.
Look for more clarity before you try.

Hey, bilateral
I had very similar problems to yours, and like you, my (somewhat wordy) post (page 28 above) got no reply. I guess most folk are pretty busy, and folks like us who want to lick the problem out of intellectual curiosity are - well - a curiosity.
In a nutshell, like you, I had sfc reporting unfixable corruption and no permutations of any of the dism command lines suggested in this and other threads actually worked. Nor would in-place repair from my media or from MS site. Here's what I found (which touches on your "do I need the exact version" question).
I had 6 files which I could not repair, no way, no how.
On inspection of the CBS and DISM logs (which (especially CBS) are so verbose as to be almost useless, until you start to see a few key words), I identified the corrupt files easily enough - eg
CSI Payload Corrupt amd64_microsoft-windows-xpsreachviewer_31bf3856ad364e35_10.0.10586.494_none_81f0023dad659294\XPS Viewer.lnk
When I looked in my Windows\WinSxS folder, sure enough, but alongside the 10.0.10586.494 folder was an almost identical folder but 10.0.10586.0, and another 10.0.10586.(something else ,can't remember). Now, when I looked in the media (I downloaded about four different version, both ISO and USB) the wim/esd files all contain 10.0.10586.0, and sometimes others, but NOT 10.0.10586.494. So of course "Files not found" is the correct and predictable answer. All the advice to "download the ISO and point dism at it" seems to ignore the fact that almost every time you download an image from MS, it is a different build, so there is probably very little chance that it will contain the "right" files for you. Naively, I assumed that this was what dism used the Windows Update service for, but it seems not.
I fixed my problem by finding another computer that happened to have 10.0.10586.494 on it (and no corruption) and physically replaced the file in my WinSxS folder (which is an exercise in itself, because of permissions, etc, but this process is easily googled), Did that for all the crook files, and presto! sfc scans clean. Why this worked, I don't know (after all WHAT does sfc use as a reference for corruption? A known good copy? A known correct hash? If so, where is it? And how does sfc know that the reference, rather than the object itself, is not corrupt?
So I half satisfied my curiosity; I could fix it, but still don't really know why. But I got good at going quickly through 20MB of CBS log - gee, that's got to be a valuable skill

Roman

Thanks to GalaxyGe, romeo (Roman) and f14tomcat (Dick) for your responses--all VERY helpful.

Galaxy, great to get a definitive reply on the Build question--this hasn't been entirely clear, and in fact I am not even sure all agree. I've not seen a definitive statement from MS on this (Why Not?), and earlier in the thread it was often glossed over, despite all the detailed advice here. (And BTW, my Win10 does run, just does not always act well--and I don't know why.)

Another thing I'd like to understand better is the two "VERSION" #s -- 1511--my install vs. 1607--the new ISO ? Yet the BUILD is also often called a "VERSION" by some. In this case, 10586.545 on my machine, but I think it might be 14343.xxx on the ISO I downloaded from TechNet. What is the relationship between these two numbers??? Also, I did first try using my original install flash drive, but that has the ESD on it, not a WIM.

Roman, I really appreciate your post--we obviously have similar ways at looking at the craziness Windows pushes us into to keep it running right. I'm not a Newbie nor naïve--used computers for 30 years and Windows since at least ver. 3, but I don't consider myself an 'expert' either. I'm willing to do some research and work, but would rather not have to go so far as you and many others here. This has been one of the most confusing encounters with the world of Windows.... Seems to me running SFC and DISM should be plenty enough. Computer and MS should be smart enough to take care of this without my having to go into SXS, take ownership, etc., etc. With all it's sophistication, why can't MS just go to its server and find the right file??? Yes, you're right about my "intellectual curiosity" but geesh, I'm also willing to just find the easy solution and let it be!

You probably know there is an "easier" way of searching the cbs.log file and pulling out all the lines with "corrupted" etc. If not, I'm sure you can find it in one of Brink's tutorials. But why do we even have to do that manually--I thought MS was moving towards self-repairable systems??

f14tomcat, yes, thanks, I will PM you for that link now. I would at least like to satisfy myself that DISM can work if there is a correct source file. I probably have committed all the errors, looked for a WIM when it was ESD, etc. But then some said you could ask it to use ESD specifically. I wanted to show I tried many variants--and I didn't even list them all. There have been SO many solutions, reading through this thread. I think Brink has tried to get everything into the tutorial, but keeping up with all the ways one can go wrong with this is a massive task.

BTW, Right-Click MOUNT does not work on my system, because I have WinZip installed, which means using another method. Nice that you point out just opening it in Explorer is possible (may take a while!) but clicking on the file opens ImgBurn in my system. Had to go to another tut to understand this.

Michael

IDEA FOR THE FORUM: Would be great if when you come to a thread on a particular subject, you immediately get a list of the related threads on the same subject. I know this might require someone to monitor and insert. Summary of a subject would be even better, but I guess that's what the tuts are supposed to do.

Following Tomcat's guidance, and using the ISO provided, I was indeed able to get DISM to work. I want to mention some implications for others who may still struggle with this, but first:

[Sorry, I failed to copy the DISM result, but it ran successfully, for the first time.] THEN, after rebooting:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>sfc /scannow

Beginning system scan. This process will take some time.

Beginning verification phase of system scan.
Verification 100% complete.

Windows Resource Protection found corrupt files and successfully repaired
them....

AND, after rebooting again:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>sfc /scannow

Beginning system scan. This process will take some time.

Beginning verification phase of system scan.
Verification 100% complete.

Windows Resource Protection did not find any integrity violations.

The offending errors?

2016-09-02 18:14:36, Info CSI 000048ce [SR] Repairing corrupted file [l:23 ml:24]"\??\C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64"\[l:10]"opencl.dll" from store AND:

2016-09-02 18:14:36, Info CSI 000048ce [SR] Repairing corrupted file [l:23 ml:24]"\??\C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64"\[l:10]"opencl.dll" from store

Nothing else, apparently. So this is the same issue that so many others have had, with Nvidia and some other display drivers (referenced in several other threads.) Running SFC /scannow after another reboot revealed no new errors.

Okay, I will comment on this in another post, in a little while.

Thanks again, all, and particularly Tomcat.

Michael

Many people had problems with this, and what made it really difficult in this thread is that there are various reasons they had trouble. So much needs to be "in place" for a solution to work. Some of this is not very clear, some were mere typos, but in the case of the "opencl.dll", which for many was the main cause of getting an error message, it not only took long to figure out what that meant--but many concluded that the error was not really an error. In fact the opposite: Using the Nvidia display driver, for many, caused the error, but that was when they thought the machine worked better. So they stopped using SFC, which meant not detecting other errors. But it is not clear this is true for all.

In my case--and granted I have not used it for very long, the "corrected" driver seems to cause me no display problems so far. Before, I was having some strange display behaviors, occasional blue screens (may be something else) and even a single program that would just disappear unexpectedly. (Happened several times.) Also, I have never myself installed a Nvidia display driver. All drivers were installed by Windows as updates, apparently because Win 10 detected that I was having problems with the display (which I was); and apparently because MS did not know what driver would work for me with my display (Toshiba Tecra A11 laptop, i7, and Nvidia NVS 2100--clearly the display hardware is weak link in this system.) Several times Win 10 did something to update the display driver; then apparently called that driver a corruption. It looks like the net result was a mess--a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?

Back to repairing the image with SFC and DISM-- Despite all the good advice on this thread, it was not made absolutely clear early on that using the same version or build was essential. People were failing earlier in this thread, without that being emphasized, or often even mentioned. ("Version" could have meant Home/Pro and x86/x64, not build.) Some succeeded, and it wasn't entirely clear why. Some succeeded by correcting typos. Some said you could use ESD with an adjustment, others said you couldn't. But it could be there is something other than absolute truth here. Does DISM check first what version of install.WIM or ESD you are using? If it did, why wouldn't it return an error right away, instead of always taking so long to run? Could this be because it is checking not for the correct build source but for the packages inside? Then if all the packages in your machine's build correspond to packages in a newer build (the main change is additional packages), DISM would report that everything is cool, even though the build is different. Or, you might use the same install device as originally used to install or upgrade, and that might now fail because Win has updated you and your packages no longer check out properly. Or maybe it does work. It's possible there is not complete consistency here. In my mind, the big problem is that MS doesn't really explain what happened when DISM runs, or advise what is required to make it work. The damned computer should be able to do that. I have to wonder if engineers at MS have any idea of the importance of people's TIME to them. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just remove /limit access and rely on the MS servers to give us the correct package?

Okay, so now I know that DISM can work. My next question is whether I should use the ISO with the latest build, from TechNet, to upgrade to a current edition,...or do the Anniversary Update (available at https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...setting_client ) Or wait to see what Windows will do. Or avoid upgrading further at all costs!

Michael