<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Compressed Backups Restore - Faster?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/buckwoody/archive/2009/06/09/compressed-backups-restore-faster.aspx</link><description>There's been some chatter on a few of the newsgroups I subscribe to about backup compression in SQL Server 2008. It seems that some folks are noticing that restoring from a compressed backup actually restores faster than an uncompressed one. This might</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: Compressed Backups Restore - Faster?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/buckwoody/archive/2009/06/09/compressed-backups-restore-faster.aspx#9726658</link><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:30:17 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9726658</guid><dc:creator>mbourgon</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Makes perfect sense - we all have a lot more free CPU time available than disks idle. &amp;nbsp;You see the same things on Litespeed - heck, that's been one of their selling points for a while - less space _and_ runs faster.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>