I had been lately searching at some website hosting solutions and a few of the companies offered various hosting locations e.g. US or United kingdom based servers.
My real question is: will it really really make a difference in the performance perspective? Allows say that i'm expecting the majority of the traffic originating from continental Europe?
Would the truth that the servers are located in United kingdom make bigger difference when the traffic was from the United kingdom.
Any benefits and drawbacks of getting an internet site located within the same county because the the majority of the expected traffic?
Yes, clearly it will matter to some extent.
This degree is dependent on the amount of your website optimisation (size the web pages, using AJAX, Expensive etc)
Example from my experience. Round-trip from russia to USA is 200ms. It doesn't make a difference for that small site enhanced for that performance, however it constitutes a huge usability difference for SmartClient being able to access Web API of the site.
Yes, distance = latency = reduced. This is exactly why Google, Amazon . com, and also the other large sites have multiple datacenters in various regions as well as continents.
Also look into the particulars from the hosting arrange for expenses.
Within Hungary most companies provide a bigger bandwith towards the national internet rather than foreign nations. Let us say you purchase an agenda and you've got one hundred Megabytes/s link with the nation, but merely a 10 Megabytes/s link with outdoors the nation. The reason being the interior bandwith cost less on their behalf compared to worldwide bandwith.
So there's an advantage to find the server towards the country which uses probably the most.
Performance is a consideration, support may be the other.
Following a couple of different encounters we decided on a provider of all time zone. Although most companies claim 24/7 support it's a completely different deal in the center of their working day than the center of their evening.
If you're able to, I only say go local.
It is a large deal for Iceland because the fiber link with europe is a lot much bigger rather than the united states. Therefore it is dependent on variables like this.
Yes, it certainly matters, as others have previously stated. You need to do really lose eyeballs with every extra 100ms.
The corollary I'd add is it really matters what datacenter your host is situated in and who they are peering with -- the main difference from a host with boxes in a major exchange point peered with several large telecommunications versus. a number in a third-tier datacenter is often as large as U.S. versus. Europe.
Google does not just have boxes everywhere for physical reasons, they are deliberately at nearly every major Internet exchange point, and they are also peering with everyone to ensure that their packets can route on whatever network may be the quickest at a moment.
You clearly can't do everything, but once you have first got it simplified to some couple of companies you are able to traceroute and check out hops and hoptimes at various occasions of day and determine what is going to possess the least latency for your customers. (i.e., if all of your customers have been in Germany, choose a place in Frankfurt and traceroute to any or all the companies inside your candidate after that.)
Another example: students in New Zealand colleges be forced to pay more to gain access to "worldwide" websites over domestic ones (College of Canterbury, for instance).
Is probably not highly relevant to you, but demonstrates that location could be factor!
Another factor as pointed out is latency, however i think the one thing to worry is that if its a continuing streem of information, it might not be huge based on teh data type, but when its a website that will get hit multiple occasions to accomplish a transaction of some kind (ajax application calling multiple web services for instance) this could begin to accumulate rich in latency (ping)