I think @yoursunny has been promoting the moon lately for his summer host. With that lag I'm sure it'll even out pretty much any two points in either continent.
@Rackoona said:
Which country is best for colocation to have neutral performance for both the USA and Asia?
Both Asia and Americas are too big to measure "performance". Pick specific countries you want and check the ping times first. thæn consider bandwidth and colocation cost.
For me, I see ping time as such:
200ms - barely enough
150ms - ok
100ms - good
anything bellow 100ms is very good. anything above 200ms is rejected.
After that, I check data transfer speed.
For me, living in Singapore, if I want a good peering, I would go with a server in LA as that provides low ping time to both Singapore and to US.
However if I want good peering within Asia, I would go with a server in Singapore itself. Expensive but good performance to most countries in Asia.
I personally avoid servers in EU region as they have poor peering with Asia in general.
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
With JP servers you can get sub 100ms to parts like Seattle in US, and a decent latency to most of East Asia.
Singapore would be the most balanced towards most of Asia, and with good peering/low latency routes you can get as low as 150ms to Western US.
Hong Kong would be a balance between these 2.
In terms of value/low-end price, I'd pick the US West coast.
JP has earthquakes (although you have them in California too, at least you don't pay a premium for it!).
Singapore is expensive.
Hong Kong can be problematic (censorship, political content).
So for me the US beats any other Asian country.
🤡 "The tags provided to users are worthless permanent labels~ accept them or leave!" 🤡
Comments
I think @yoursunny has been promoting the moon lately for his summer host. With that lag I'm sure it'll even out pretty much any two points in either continent.
Both Asia and Americas are too big to measure "performance". Pick specific countries you want and check the ping times first. thæn consider bandwidth and colocation cost.
For me, I see ping time as such:
200ms - barely enough
150ms - ok
100ms - good
anything bellow 100ms is very good. anything above 200ms is rejected.
After that, I check data transfer speed.
For me, living in Singapore, if I want a good peering, I would go with a server in LA as that provides low ping time to both Singapore and to US.
However if I want good peering within Asia, I would go with a server in Singapore itself. Expensive but good performance to most countries in Asia.
I personally avoid servers in EU region as they have poor peering with Asia in general.
If you want information, feign ignorance reply with the wrong answer. Internet people will correct you ASAP!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
Think you'll need to test it tbh because its so dependent on backbone etc in ways that isn't geographically intuitive
With JP servers you can get sub 100ms to parts like Seattle in US, and a decent latency to most of East Asia.
Singapore would be the most balanced towards most of Asia, and with good peering/low latency routes you can get as low as 150ms to Western US.
Hong Kong would be a balance between these 2.
The Ultimate Speedtest Script | Get Instant Alerts on new LES/LET deals | Cheap VPS Deals | VirMach Flash Sales Notifier
FREE KVM VPS - FreeVPS.org | FREE LXC VPS - MicroLXC
In terms of value/low-end price, I'd pick the US West coast.
JP has earthquakes (although you have them in California too, at least you don't pay a premium for it!).
Singapore is expensive.
Hong Kong can be problematic (censorship, political content).
So for me the US beats any other Asian country.
🤡 "The tags provided to users are worthless permanent labels~ accept them or leave!" 🤡