Which location would you choose?

[devonblzx]

Judging from my atlas, Los Angeles would be horrible for Australia and Asia, it is on the opposite side of the map. (</sarcasm>).

In all seriousness, there is no ideal location for everyone on Earth, the Earth is round and one point is always going to be farthest away from another point.  I guess the only thing you can bet on is that there are more people in the Northern hemisphere  than the Southern hemisphere and Eastern hemisphere than the Western hemisphere.  So if you're really trying for a global reach with the most population, Asia would be the best choice.  However, it would not be ideal for Eastern US / Western Europe users so you really have to analyze your target market. Other than that, any big POP in the Northern hemisphere as drmike suggested above.

 

[Shados]

Judging from my atlas, Los Angeles would be horrible for Australia and Asia, it is on the opposite side of the map. (</sarcasm>).

Speaking as an Australian, LA is actually kind of crap for us on anything real-time (e.g. computer games ). Obviously it's better than most of the rest of the US, and certainly fine for websites etc., but I wouldn't describe it as 'good'.

 

[BrianHarrison]

We put a lot of thought and research into this same question. We ultimately went with Seattle, WA in the Westin Building and with a lot of NTT bandwidth in our BGP mix.

If you want to best serve the all the major markets in the world from a single location, then you cannot ignore Asia.

From Seattle with NTT you can reach the entire United States under 80ms, London in ~130ms, and Tokyo in ~117ms -- all very reasonable ping times. 

If you go with London, you'll be able to serve all of Europe very well, North America well but Asia will suffer. I ran a few ping tests from the NTT looking glass servers to the BBC servers in the UK: ~250ms to Tokyo, ~260ms to Hong Kong and ~290ms to Seoul. Those are pings times that customers will complain about.

Los Angeles would be another location I'd consider, but choose your upstream provider carefully -- there are a lot of congested links running in and out of LA.

 

[BrianHarrison]

Yeah, there is no center of the internet.   Even playing the US central corridor game is highly flawed.  Routes in the US are utter garbage and vary greatly depending on upstream.

One could argue over the definition of the word "center", but clearly there is one geographic area through which the majority of Internet traffic flows: the USA. A little bit old, but still very relevant: http://www.telegeography.com/assets/website/images/maps/global-traffic-map-2010/global-traffic-map-2010-wp1600.jpeg

If you want to best serve all the major markets from a single location, then you need to be in the United States. Given the history of the Internet, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Sure there are poor routes in the USA, but you wouldn't use something like Cogent for your latency-sensitive international links. Use a quality carrier like Level3 or NTT when you have to cross an ocean.

 

[OSTKCabal]

I'd dare say that it greatly depends on the blend of the network. For example, some providers don't have fiber that goes all the way through the continuous United States. Some stop right at the major exchange regions like New York, Atlanta, or Los Angeles.

I'd highly recommend nearly anything with NTT or Level(3) to serve an international market. I've personally never had a client complain about PCCW Global transit, but they're one of the ones I mentioned that doesn't have their own fiber through the entirety of the U.S. (As seen at http://map.pccwglobal.com/)

The U.S. is, as some have said, a major peering and transit point for global telecommunications.

Just something to consider. New York is a popular choice for people who want to serve the U.S. and Europe well. Asia and the West Coast might hurt a little bit, but nowhere near as much as having the infrastructure set up in the UK.

 

[irishwill2008]

In my opinion i would highly choose somewhere in the middle of the world so its easy access and fast speeds for those worldwide. France is a decent enough location, Netherlands also.

But it is truly up to yourself rather or not you want them.

Thank you.

 

[sz1hosting]

UK would prob be the best for covering all locations.

 

[AThomasHowe]

At one point last year CloudFlare said they were going to add free SSL for all, not sure what's happening with it now though, slated for Q1 2014. There are work arounds though.

 

[Alex]

I suggest you France as It helps you connect Europe ,Middle East ,America,Asia.

 

[BrianHarrison]

I suggest you France as It helps you connect Europe ,Middle East ,America,Asia.

Services hosted in France would definitely have high latency to southeast Asia.

 

[TheTalentedMrColo]

I'd go dallas, but I agree with with the people saying you need distribution. It's a speed of light issue. It's only going to so fast.