Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

Latest LowEndBox Offers

    Hosting for both NA & EU
    New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

    Hosting for both NA & EU

    datanoisedatanoise Member
    edited September 2018 in Help

    Hi LET.

    Do some people here host a website for both EU & NA (US/CA, eventually some south american traffic as well) on only one server? I would consider that two servers (one in US or CA, other one in EU) with the dns servers sending visitors to the closest server would be the best way, but could it work well with one server?

    If so, where would you put this server? I would think that north america / East coast would be better as EU would bring too much latency for visitors from, say, California.

    Would OVH Canada be a good provider for both EU & NA? (They seem to have OK routes in America, and a decent network in the EU as well)... But.. how would that work for visitors from India?

    I read that some people host with Cloudvider some websites where a big chuck of the traffic comes from the US. What about the west coast or South America? Is the latency bearable?

    Thank!

    Thanked by 1Clouvider

    don't buy what you don't need: idling hurts your wallet & the planet...

    Comments

    • Why not just get something local? Brazil for example.

      Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet

    • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

      Have a check for yourself, ping us and see if you’re happy with the latency :-).

      Thanked by 1datanoise

      Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

      Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

    • rm_rm_ Member
      edited September 2018

      datanoise said: I would consider than two servers (one in US or CA, other one in EU) with the dns servers sending visitors to the closest server would be the best way, but could it be work well with one server?

      This is just way too complex for no good reason. Web site hosting should be fine with <100ms ping. If you're considering South America as well, get an East Coast US server and just one will be enough for all three. Or if India is more important, then use EU.

      Thanked by 1datanoise
    • Thx guys

      Hukin said: Why not just get something local? Brazil for example.

      Too expensive as there is not only 1 local need...

      Clouvider said: Have a check for yourself, ping us and see if you’re happy with the latency :-).

      Will do. Real world experience report wouldn't hurt though ;-)

      rm_ said: This is just way too complex for no good reason.

      Maybe. East Coast (or maybe even EU) could probably do the trick just fine. Adding another location adds a layer of resilience though, as all traffic could be automatically moved to one location if the other is down (LowEndHA).

      don't buy what you don't need: idling hurts your wallet & the planet...

    • HukinHukin Member
      edited September 2018

      datanoise said: Too expensive

      Not really. G-Core open Sao Paulo Brazil location few days ago, from 4,50 EUR per month.

      Thanked by 1datanoise

      Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet

    Sign In or Register to comment.