Kevin Grittner wrote:
Was going on memory from a presentation I watched. Reports on the web have shown anything from a 3x increase using 8 cores to other non-detailed reports of "up to" 8x improvement. If you have one big table, don't expect much if any improvement. If you have lots of smaller tables/indexes then parallel restore will probably benefit you. This is all based on the not-atypical assumption that your restore will be CPU bound. I don't think parallel restore will be much use beyond the point you hit IO limits.Steve Crawford <scrawford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Cheers, Steve |
