Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What factors generally seem most important if you have issues of geography that seem relevant for providing an internet service and freedom to choose between locations. How do you evaluate them?

A contrast may help indicate what I am getting at: in Europe if one is shopping for a VPS, the Netherlands appears to me to be a category killer because of (i) The AMS-IX international IP hub, and (ii) the huge number of competetive, professional VPS providers that have grown up around the hub. But the US seems to be harder to evaluate, and it seems that a lot of people choose to have hosting in all four timezones, which seems like overkill for all but the biggest enterprises.

Related links

  1. The ICANN IP hubs map;
  2. SF questions: Managed hosting vs. colocation, Webserver hosting location
share|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

I generally ignore geography in favor of topology in nearly all cases: The datacenter around the corner is great because I can walk there if something breaks, but if their sole internet connection is a tin can and string through a 3rd or 4th tier provider with no redundancy they're obviously out of the running for serious hosting.

The only time I really consider geography is when putting up redundant sites - If your main site is in NY that means your redundant site is in California or Chicago/Dallas (geographically far enough that you're safe from local incidents, and you know it's probably got different routes than the primary site).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.