3 ms·

I bet the odds are damn good that neither of them ARE polluting the OS Cache. That they are is just speculation from someone whose taken his experience and pro

by nirvana 14y ago

I bet the odds are damn good that neither of them ARE polluting the OS Cache. That they are is just speculation from someone whose taken his experience and projected it onto everybody. Since he's a person who mucks around with random system settings (like the one in his article) there's no telling what previous damage he's done to cause this problem.

spudlyo 14y ago
You might be right. In my testing, mdworker and friends behave like you'd want them to, I don't see them polluting the cache on my Lion machine. Haven't tried time machine yet. EDIT: I can't get either spotlight or time machine to show any cache polluting behavior at all, at least not in the way that I run them. I used "mdutil -E /" to force a re-index of my disk, and I kicked off an initial time machine backup on a secondary drive I had lying around. I see both backupd and mdworker doing a lot of disk reads using iotop, but top shows my inactive memory not really changing as drastically as I'd expect, like if I were to cat a giant file to /dev/null.