How to identify Reclaimable Packages reported as count by "Dism /Online /CleanUp-Image /AnalyzeComponentStore"

Bree · Nov 8, 2024

Well, good news @Umba and @Ed Tittel. I finally found and removed my 12 offending packages, but it wasn't easy and took some detective work.

First I used the command DISM /ONLINE /GET-PACKAGES /FORMAT:TABLE > KB.txt in an admin prompt. Then I copied the text into a spreadsheet, using the | character as the column delimiter. This was so I could sort on the column headings. When sorted by 'State', then 'Release Type' there was only the one group of 12 packages with identical state/types, these were all "Staged | Feature Pack". I removed each one with Dism /online /remove-package /packagename: then ran /analyzecomponentstore. 'Reclaimable packages' was now zero. Running /statcomponentcleanup then shrank the component store a little bit more.

PS: it did help getting up the nerve to try this experiment that I was running this Insider Beta build in a Hyper-V VM with a checkpoint I could go back to if it all went wrong. If you're going to risk trying this on a physical machine, then make sure you make a system image before you start!

cereberus · Nov 8, 2024

@Bree

I got as far as spreadsheet and when I filtered on feature pack, I got the following subtable as below.

Not sure what I need to do next - you said you had 12 items staged & feature pack. I only have 1 it seems.
I also have one marked superseded.

Should I just delete those 2?

As an aside - I might experiment with writing a macro to create a .cmd file with all the necessary commands to remove the packages.

edit: just tried to delete the one marked stage & feature pack and got an error saying delete had failed.

jimhow4545 · Nov 8, 2024

Umba said:
"Dism /Online /CleanUp-Image /AnalyzeComponentStore" reports that there are Reclaimable Packages:

Number of Reclaimable Packages : 2
Component Store Cleanup Recommended : Yes

After running "Dism /Online /CleanUp-Image /StartComponentCleanup" the number of Reclaimable Packages does not change.

Is there a way to identify these Reclaimable Packages?

This is an advanced question. Please don't waist your time by suggesting rebooting PC, running sfc and ScanHealth. Please don't post garbage comments or links to other posts. If you know the answer, just provide a command, if not keep your thoughts to yourself, please.

How about do a disk clean or clean install?

Bree · Nov 8, 2024

cereberus said:
...you said you had 12 items staged & feature pack. I only have 1 it seems.
I also have one marked superseded.....

edit: just tried to delete the one marked stage & feature pack and got an error saying delete had failed.

We have quite different builds, mine is Insider Beta 23H2 22635.4440, yours looks like RTM 24H2 26100.2161.

Do you have 1 reclaimable package that persists no mater how often you run /StartComponentCleanup? I had 12 (un)reclaimable packages, and I also had 12 'Staged | Feature Pack' packages - seemed to be too much of a coincidence, so I deleted them.

In your case I suspect the rogue package may be the 'Superseded | Feature Pack' one.

cereberus · Nov 8, 2024

Bree said:
We have quite different builds, mine is Insider Beta 23H2 22635.4440, yours looks like RTM 24H2 26100.2161.

Do you have 1 reclaimable package that persists no mater how often you run /StartComponentCleanup? I had 12 (un)reclaimable packages, and I also had 12 'Staged | Feature Pack' packages - seemed to be too much of a coincidence, so I deleted them.

In your case I suspect the rogue package may be the 'Superseded | Feature Pack' one.

I have two unreclaimable packages. By inference it is the two I mentioned.

However, I tried to delete one but it failed to delete.

Not sure where to go from here but try and delete from winpe (not sure of syntax but I will work it out).

Bree · Nov 8, 2024

cereberus said:
I have two unreclaimable packages. By inference it is the two I mentioned.

However, I tried to delete one but it failed to delete.

I also have an RTM 24H2 machine, and it too has two unreclaimable packages. The Microsoft-Windows-FodMetadataServicing-Desktop-Metadata-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742 Superseded Feature Pack was certainly one of them, deleting it reduced the count to one unreclaimable package.

I'm inclined to suspect the other 10.0.26100.1742 Feature Pack that installed at the same date (and is Staged), Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742, but I get 'Error: 5 Access is denied' when I try deleting it.

cereberus · Nov 8, 2024

Bree said:
I also have an RTM 24H2 machine, and it too has two unreclaimable packages. The Microsoft-Windows-FodMetadataServicing-Desktop-Metadata-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742 Superseded Feature Pack was certainly one of them, deleting it reduced the count to one unreclaimable package.

I'm inclined to suspect the other 10.0.26100.1742 Feature Pack that installed at the same date (and is Staged), Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742, but I get 'Error: 5 Access is denied' when I try deleting it.

View attachment 115628

Yeah same as me.

The logs are rather indecipherable to mere mortals

I suspect the package is in use.

I see there are two package that seem to be the same, except one is for .2161 and one for .1742

It seems odd that we cannot delete .1742 version.

Maybe we can force delete it (and explode the space time multiverse continuum :ROFLMAO:

) but good old MRH backup will fix it in seconds.

In the end, I bet this slight discrepancy has no impact on the "meaning of life".
So it is more of an academic exercise trying to get rid of it, other than having any real benefit.
Mind you, neither of us like to be beaten

.

Bree · Nov 8, 2024

cereberus said:
The logs are rather indecipherable to mere mortals

I suspect the package is in use.

I see there are two package that seem to be the same, except one is for .2161 and one for .1742

It seems odd that we cannot delete .1742 version.

Maybe we can force delete it (and explode the space time multiverse continuum ) but good old MRH backup will fix it in seconds.

In the end, I bet this slight discrepancy has no impact on the "meaning of life".
So it is more of an academic exercise trying to get rid of it, other than having any real benefit.
Mind you, neither of us like to be beaten.

The CBS.log holds the key as to why we cannot delete it. Only the owner (presumably TrustedInstaller) can do so....

Code:

2024-11-08 11:45:39, Info                  CBS    Appl: Higher version found for package: Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742, superseded. (Version on system:Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.2033)
2024-11-08 11:45:39, Info                  CBS    Appl: Evaluating package applicability for package Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742, applicable state: Superseded
2024-11-08 11:45:39, Info                  CBS    External EvaluateApplicability - Current state, package: Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742, package current state: Staged, lowest rollup current state: Staged, resulting current state: Staged
2024-11-08 11:45:39, Error                 CBS    Only package owners can remove package: Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742 [HRESULT = 0x80070005 - E_ACCESSDENIED]

cereberus · Nov 8, 2024

Bree said:

The CBS.log holds the key as to why we cannot delete it. Only the owner (presumably TrustedInstaller) can do so....

Code:

2024-11-08 11:45:39, Info                  CBS    Appl: Higher version found for package: Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742, superseded. (Version on system:Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.2033)
2024-11-08 11:45:39, Info                  CBS    Appl: Evaluating package applicability for package Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742, applicable state: Superseded
2024-11-08 11:45:39, Info                  CBS    External EvaluateApplicability - Current state, package: Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742, package current state: Staged, lowest rollup current state: Staged, resulting current state: Staged
2024-11-08 11:45:39, Error                 CBS    Only package owners can remove package: Microsoft-Windows-Licenses-Core-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742 [HRESULT = 0x80070005 - E_ACCESSDENIED]

Can you delete packages offline?

Edit 1: I found the way to delete it offline (dism command as per @Bree but without /online.

Ran it via a winpe command prompt, and it still would not delete!

Edit 2: @Bree - have you any idea where this file may be stored?

Edit 3: I cannot find this directly but I found this. The plot thickens......

KevTech · Nov 8, 2024

Perhaps the packages that will not delete are in use as they are hard linked to other directories/files outside of the component store.

Determining the size of the Windows Component Store is complicated by the fact that many of the files are used by Windows from directories outside the Windows Component Store using a technique known as hard linking. In such cases, the files from a component version appear both inside and outside the Windows Component Store. By using hard linking Windows is able to appear to keep multiple copies of the same file without actually taking the added space for multiple copies.

Manage the Component Store

learn.microsoft.com

Bree · Nov 9, 2024

cereberus said:
Edit 2: @Bree - have you any idea where this file may be stored?

Edit 3: I cannot find this directly but I found this. The plot thickens......

There are registry entries for all those too....

Bree said:
I finally found and removed my 12 offending packages, but it wasn't easy and took some detective work.

The joy was short-lived. After the Insider Beta Channel got a new CU they all returned

This behaviour is well known as happening after an in-place repair upgrade (the only other known way to remove them) but I had hoped that using DISM would be different.

On the basis of the above I've given up trying to remove the stubborn 1742 'Licenses' one from my System One's 24H2. Instead I've restored its latest 23H2 image and have set its Target Feature Update to 24H2 so that Windows Update will install it again. This should skip over those troublesome 1742 packages and go straight to 2033.

jimhow4545 · Nov 9, 2024

These stuffs beyond average IT support. This is hardcore OS fiddling.

Bree · Nov 9, 2024

Bree said:
I've given up trying to remove the stubborn 1742 'Licenses' one from my System One's 24H2. Instead I've restored its latest 23H2 image and have set its Target Feature Update to 24H2 so that Windows Update will install it again. This should skip over those troublesome 1742 packages and go straight to 2033.

Would you credit it :eyeroll:

After all that work those two (un)reclaimable packages were there again!

jimminy · Nov 9, 2024

Bree said:
Would you credit it

After all that work those two (un)reclaimable packages were there again!

Yep, it's like the clap. Once you've got it, you're stuck with it. Only microsoft can provide the penicillin for it.

Bree · Nov 11, 2024

As an experiment I did a clean install with a 26100.2033 USB made by the MCT. At no point did I let it connect to the internet. These two unreclaimable packages were already present. There is no possible way to avoid them, the fault is built into the install media!

26100-2033 clean install has 2 unreclaimable packages.png

TechieBufMaf · Nov 13, 2024

Bree said:
As an experiment I did a clean install with a 26100.2033 USB made by the MCT. At no point did I let it connect to the internet. These two unreclaimable packages were already present. There is no possible way to avoid them, the fault is built into the install media!

View attachment 115899

This has happened to me also since the 24H2 install last month. I sent feedback using the feedback hub.

cereberus · Nov 14, 2024

I did manage to remove one of the packages and the space saving was too small to be detected. I looked closer in device file repositories with drivers/extensions with same name, and the files were around 13KB.

As I said in another post, windows probably has hundreds of redundant files but we never worry about those.

So I have now concluded we should just ingnore these unreclaimable packages as they are too small to be significant.

To quote Bill - "Much Ado About Nothing".

Bree · Nov 14, 2024

cereberus said:
I did manage to remove one of the packages and the space saving was too small to be detected. I looked closer in device file repositories with drivers/extensions with same name, and the files were around 13KB.

As I said in another post, windows probably has hundreds of redundant files but we never worry about those.

So I have now concluded we should just ingnore these unreclaimable packages as they are too small to be significant.

To quote Bill - "Much Ado About Nothing".

Yes, you can remove one package, as I did earlier.....

Bree said:
I also have an RTM 24H2 machine, and it too has two unreclaimable packages. The Microsoft-Windows-FodMetadataServicing-Desktop-Metadata-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~~10.0.26100.1742 Superseded Feature Pack was certainly one of them, deleting it reduced the count to one unreclaimable package.

The acid test though would be if it returned after a CU, as the 12 in my Beta build did. I get Beta build CUs almost every week, I had to wait for Patch Tuesday to find out for 24H2. Fortunately this one stays deleted, so I'm down to just the one now.

The annoying thing is not the space taken up (which is minimal). It's the Component Store Cleanup Recommended : Yes bit, meaning that I'll never know for sure whether or not I should run the time consuming /StartComponentCleanup.

cereberus · Nov 14, 2024

Bree said:
Yes, you can remove one package, as I did earlier.....

The acid test though would be if it returned after a CU, as the 12 in my Beta build did. I get Beta build CUs almost every week, I had to wait for Patch Tuesday to find out for 24H2. Fortunately this one stays deleted, so I'm down to just the one now.

The annoying thing is not the space taken up (which is minimal). It's the Component Store Cleanup Recommended : Yes bit, meaning that I'll never know for sure whether or not I should run the time consuming /StartComponentCleanup.

I guess if it only says 2, then don't bother?

Bree · Nov 14, 2024

cereberus said:
I guess if it only says 2, then don't bother?

Even if it only says 2, or in 23H2 says 0 and that a cleanup is not needed, after a CU there's often a significant size reduction to be made by running one anyway.

How to identify Reclaimable Packages reported as count by "Dism /Online /CleanUp-Image /AnalyzeComponentStore"

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Active member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Active member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

New member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Well-known member

My Computer

Well-known member

My Computers

Similar threads