In a message dated 2/18/2008 11:18:35 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I THINK the difference arises because of the key. While many of us tend to ignore the key when referring to directory block, Seymour chooses NOT to ignore this value. I now see the source of the communications problem, which was exacerbated by Seymour's predilection to post one-word cryptic replies or, in the case of his reply to my post, a riddle. The poster wrote ">Just to clarify: size of dir. block is always 256 B". The meaning of the word "size" depends on whether you mean in virtual storage or stored on a disk track. In virtual storage, the size of a directory block is 272 bytes (count+key+data), as I described in my previous post. But if stored on a disk track, it depends on the device type but is always a lot more than 272, which Seymour had in mind but did not reveal to us. The word "block" might (correctly) mean to some the entire stored record (count+key+data) while (incorrectly) only the data area to others. This confusion has also not been helped by IBM documentation, which sometimes refers to a DASD block stored on a track as a "block" and at other times a "record". Bill Fairchild
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/ 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
