depends on a few factors I would guess... price, network, etc. If your customers would be mainly US based, it would be good to have a box in the US. Likewise if more customers would be UK based, a server in the UK would be better.
Latency across the pond is relatively high if you have sites US targeted, but the traffic has to travel a few thousand miles
Performance wise a good host in the DAC east datacenter may even give better service than a UK server. This DC has a direct pipeline to London and seems to proivde excellent connections to UK. Ultimately your service will hinge on the host you choose. Bluewho comes to mind when looking for a quality host in the DAC east center.
You mean NAC - and yes, they are very good - we've been extremely happy with their performance in the UK. But there are valid reasons to go with a UK server if that is your market, from the slight performance jump, to marketing / SEO.
Originally posted by InSite You mean NAC - and yes, they are very good - we've been extremely happy with their performance in the UK. But there are valid reasons to go with a UK server if that is your market, from the slight performance jump, to marketing / SEO.
Yes, I got my acronyms (or brain) crosslinked. My real point was that the quality of the host is the key issue. If a quality host is chosen and the conx is as good as a more expensive UK host then go for it. As far us hosts selling too cheap I see two issues. One is whether the host provides triple AAA quality support for the money as in the case of Bluewho. And at a price that can be substantiated in the market.
Naturally a host that is underpriced and overselling is not a good choice.
Originally posted by MeToo As far us hosts selling too cheap.... Bluewho
I wasnt talking about hosts such as Bluewho - I think their pricing and packages are extremely fair. It's the hosts that offer 5/200 gig packages for $10 that worry me
Bandwidth IS more expensive in the UK, but that is probably due largely to do with the fact that there is generally less overselling here. With most US servers you get 1000GB bandwidth - but wouldnt you hate to be on a resellers server that was actually using that! With UK servers, you probably will only get around a quarter of the bandwidth, but that is a much more sensible figure for most hardware configurations.
I am not affiliated with Bluewho or any UK hosts. However, I feel your hacked up quote of my post is extremely unfair to Bluewho leaving the impression to casual viewers that I was making a synergy between cheap hosts and Bluewho. That is not the case. A fair and complete quote would clear that impression.
My absolute worst reseller hosting experience was with a UK hosting company (ProWebSpace).
I should also point out that many UK hosting companies actually use servers located in US datacentres, then charge inflated UK prices...
Also UK Hosting companies generally don't offer the range of facilities you get from US hosts - unless you pay for each 'extra' facility, which gets even more expensive.
I'm a UK reseller using a US/UK based host with servers in the planet, the response times are faster then the UK host I was with before I moved to them. Cheaper bandwidth and the exchange rate make it a good deal for UK resellers as long as the host arn't offering stupid amounts of included bandwidth.
I get 20gb of bandwidth and 1gb HD space for just over 20 UKP per month, extra bandwidth is 70 pence per gig. And that's the 'starter' package, it's not oversold and I can make a decent profit. Compared to the previous UK host I have cut my overheads by 60%.
The only downside that I can see is some clients may not want a US based server because of the time difference (time stamping ect).