Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Shells Virtual Desktop
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Server.net
CPLicense.net
VPS Server
Buy VPN
Vultr
VMs for AI
HostDare
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
InterServer VPS
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Best VPN
High-Performance Bare Metal Server Solutions
Karvl.com
Server Mania Cloud Hosting
DataWagon Hosting
AlphaVPS Hosting
Evoxt.com
Clouvider
VPS Hosting with NVMe
Residential IPs in the US & 4G Mobile Proxies in EU & US with Unlimited Bandwidth
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
Rabisu - Hosting Solutions
Shells Virtual Desktop
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Is physical location or peering more important for speed?

If you have the option to choose between a provider that has servers in your city but no direct peering with major ISPs (peering with provider 2, though) vs a provider that's 150km away but has direct peering with the 3 major ISPs, which would you choose for performance? Assuming every access to the website would be from the physical location of provider 1 (max 5km radius)

Comments

  • crunchbitscrunchbits Member, Patron Provider, Top Host
    edited December 2023

    @siemens said:
    If you have the option to choose between a provider that has servers in your city but no direct peering with major ISPs (peering with provider 2, though) vs a provider that's 150km away but has direct peering with the 3 major ISPs, which would you choose for performance? Assuming every access to the website would be from the physical location of provider 1 (max 5km radius)

    This issue is common where I live (and our main office is). Almost every single provider will peer and/or backhaul all traffic approx 300mi away to Seattle, WA. Unfortunately, a lot of ISPs just won't even bother peering outside of a major IX.

    It would probably come down to specifics like what physical path are they taking (if a different one) and how congested their peering ports/links are, etc. I would assume either way all your traffic has to transit 150km away to provider 2 anyways (and then onto their peering), so it is probably better to go to the provider that peers in-house rather than rely on a provider that is 2 degrees of separation away assuming all else is equal. That is if I understood correctly and your ISP (or all local ISPs) only peer with provider 2 and you are talking about performance originated on said ISPs from physical location of provider 1

    Thanked by 1siemens
  • edited December 2023

    Unless your application is very latency sensitive I would say peering. Especially if that means they have more redundancy in their peering arrangements (multiple physical connectivity rather than most/all that peering happening down a potential single-point-of-failure). As well as being better for reliability if you are looking at that over speed, better physical layer redundancy increases the change they'll be able to maintain the speed during a fault situation with them or one of their peering partners.

    Thanked by 1siemens
  • @crunchbits said: That is if I understood correctly and your ISP (or all local ISPs) only peer with provider 2 and you are talking about performance originated on said ISPs from physical location of provider 1

    Yes, exactly, all major ISPs peer with provider 2 in the capital but all customers are in the small city where provider 1, which doesn't peer with with any ISPs, is.

    Thanks!

Sign In or Register to comment.