Where should we open our next VPS.NET cloud #2

[Ditlev]

Gent's,
You were kind enough to give your input my first round of questions related to the next VPS.NET cloud location.

Very shortly the third VPS.NET cloud will open. We've chosen a US location for that, so we will have two US locations and one European.

We are not stopping here though, and we have identified our next two locations as Tokyo, Japan and Sao Paulo, Brazil.

This poll will help us to determine which one we should open first ... So, which one should it be, Tokyo or Sao Paulo...

Thanks for your input!


D

[sam]

Not sure I'd ever use either location, but I think that Tokyo would be the best place, mainly due to spreading out. If you have the next in brazil that leaves the majority of asia without good latency, doesn't it? Tokyo would remove that issue.

I should check a map, I don't do well at geography

[nullmind]

Darn, still no Bahamas ...

[jacobj]

I missed the first round of this thread; I'm sure Brazil would be a great market to move into and gain a lead in. I'd love to see Australia up next, but it, China and India really need their own clouds, not least due to distance. That said Singapore is an acceptable compromise for covering all of them at latency generally slightly better or the same as to the US West coast or Europe. HK and Tokyo really only offer coverage for their own immediate region and China (not Australia or India!). How about Africa? (With the latest cables, London and potentially Mumbai will offer acceptable latency, but nothing compares to being on a continent!)

[acweb]

I thought Central Euro won the poll?

[TheLunny]

Originally Posted by sam

Not sure I'd ever use either location, but I think that Tokyo would be the best place, mainly due to spreading out. If you have the next in brazil that leaves the majority of asia without good latency, doesn't it? Tokyo would remove that issue.

I should check a map, I don't do well at geography

I agree on that. Tokyo would be good. Right now, it's taking around 21 hops from Singapore to the US Cloud. Really in need of a location to cover Asia at the very least.

[Ditlev]

Originally Posted by TheLunny

I agree on that. Tokyo would be good. Right now, it's taking around 21 hops from Singapore to the US Cloud. Really in need of a location to cover Asia at the very least.

Interesting, how many hops to Japan? Like if you trace jprs.jp ?


D

[Ditlev]

Originally Posted by jacobj

I missed the first round of this thread; I'm sure Brazil would be a great market to move into and gain a lead in. I'd love to see Australia up next, but it, China and India really need their own clouds, not least due to distance. That said Singapore is an acceptable compromise for covering all of them at latency generally slightly better or the same as to the US West coast or Europe. HK and Tokyo really only offer coverage for their own immediate region and China (not Australia or India!). How about Africa? (With the latest cables, London and potentially Mumbai will offer acceptable latency, but nothing compares to being on a continent!)

yes, our main concern is hitting pricepoints on bandwidth that our VPS.NET concept can adopt. Bandwidth in Tokyo is already 5-7 x more expensive than what we pay in UK/US. HK/Singerpore is even worse, so is Australia.

We have not looked into Africa so far, but it might make sense doing so at some stage - like setting up something in South Africa.


D

[TheLunny]

Originally Posted by Ditlev

Interesting, how many hops to Japan? Like if you trace jprs.jp ?


D

It takes 15 hops with a latency of around ~90ms on average.

Here's the result of the tracert and ping.

Tracing route to jprs.jp [202.11.16.167]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 11 ms 8 ms 35 ms cm1.eta132.maxonline.com.sg [116.88.132.1]
2 88 ms 7 ms 12 ms 172.20.42.65
3 11 ms 7 ms 8 ms 172.26.42.1
4 14 ms 17 ms 7 ms 172.20.7.18
5 9 ms 29 ms 14 ms 172.20.7.50
6 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 203.117.34.113
7 15 ms 20 ms 10 ms 203.117.34.9
8 95 ms 106 ms 107 ms 59.128.15.65
9 86 ms 89 ms 96 ms otecbb103.kddnet.ad.jp [59.128.5.65]
10 91 ms 108 ms 93 ms otejbb203.kddnet.ad.jp [59.128.4.161]
11 97 ms 94 ms 95 ms cm-ote224.kddnet.ad.jp [118.155.197.137]
12 95 ms 91 ms 95 ms 118.159.224.22
13 95 ms 96 ms 89 ms gi0-1-me-nc4.inet-gate8.jprs.co.jp [202.11.16.13
]
14 107 ms 91 ms 91 ms e2-3-rs2-nc4.nsv-gw1.jprs.co.jp [202.11.16.68]
15 91 ms 96 ms 90 ms jprs.jp [202.11.16.167]

Trace complete.

------------------

Pinging jprs.jp [202.11.16.167] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=244
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=244
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=244
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=244
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=244
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=244
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=244
Reply from 202.11.16.167: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 202.11.16.167:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 88ms, Maximum = 106ms, Average = 92ms

[envygeeks]

Originally Posted by Ditlev

yes, our main concern is hitting pricepoints on bandwidth that our VPS.NET concept can adopt. Bandwidth in Tokyo is already 5-7 x more expensive than what we pay in UK/US. HK/Singerpore is even worse, so is Australia.

We have not looked into Africa so far, but it might make sense doing so at some stage - like setting up something in South Africa.


D

Give Australia time, when that bandwidth thing goes down where they offer bandwidth across all of Australia I bet it will go down tons :P.