why is the default to fsck's "ignore error" "yes"?
 

Hello. Can someone explain to me please why is it that when you run fsck and an "Error reading block..." occurs, you are prompted to ignore the error?

D.

As opposed to _____???

as opposed to "no".

Why would you want to ignore the error, would you not be better off trying to fix it?

Some errors, such as a bad disk block, can't be recovered. If they could, fsck probably would've done it already. If you tell it to ignore the error it should try to reconstruct whatever data it can from the problem area.