Howdy, Stranger!

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


Exabytes vs. Smarthost.net Denver Routing within same datacenter is different
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Exabytes vs. Smarthost.net Denver Routing within same datacenter is different

Hi,

I was looking at SmartHost Denver and Exabytes comparing the two providers, both located at Handy Networks Denver data center. Exabytes provides the test IP: 173.248.157.218. I also compared SmartHost's Denver test IP of 192.199.242.2. For some reason, despite both being located in the same data center, Exabytes has superior routing to most of our clients and lower latencies. I was wondering if anyone could shed any light on why this might be? Is it carrier related? How are these things usually figured out to make the right decision of what host to go with?

Thanked by 1jugganuts

Comments

  • Your probably better off with Chicago or Dallas in general.

  • jackbjackb Member, Provider

    192.199.242.2 is singlehomed zayo while 173.248.157.218 is zayo, gtt, cogent and he.

    https://bgpview.io/prefix/173.248.128.0/18#routing
    https://bgpview.io/prefix/192.199.242.0/24#routing

    Afterburst - Awesome OpenVZ&KVM VPS in US+EU

  • MannDudeMannDude Member, Provider

    Testing both from the Netherlands, they seem practically the same from me. Both are almost entirely Zayo.

    [ IncogNet LLC ] [ CloudLinux Shared | KVM VPS ] [ No Personal Details Required, Crypto Accepted ]

    AMD Ryzen and NVMe powered KVM Servers in the Netherlands and Finland.

  • @jackb said:
    192.199.242.2 is singlehomed zayo while 173.248.157.218 is zayo, gtt, cogent and he.

    https://bgpview.io/prefix/173.248.128.0/18#routing
    https://bgpview.io/prefix/192.199.242.0/24#routing

    Could you tell me how I could go about figuring this out in the future for choosing low latency VPSses?

  • You get yourself 2 or more servers to compare, with specific test destinations.
    So you conclude tests and figure out which is better connected.

    https://github.com/Ne00n/latency-triangulator-integrator-analysator-7560b
    Before I add servers to my low latency network, I use that tool above.

    NanoKVM | Free NAT KVM | Apply here

  • @Neoon said:
    You get yourself 2 or more servers to compare, with specific test destinations.
    So you conclude tests and figure out which is better connected.

    https://github.com/Ne00n/latency-triangulator-integrator-analysator-7560b
    Before I add servers to my low latency network, I use that tool above.

    I think the tool you describe is not ideal because I'm not just looking for myself, it's also for other clients from different locations. I am looking for carriers that have good reach to multiple states, not just for myself.

  • WebHorizonWebHorizon Member, Provider

    @ts001 said:

    @Neoon said:
    You get yourself 2 or more servers to compare, with specific test destinations.
    So you conclude tests and figure out which is better connected.

    https://github.com/Ne00n/latency-triangulator-integrator-analysator-7560b
    Before I add servers to my low latency network, I use that tool above.

    I think the tool you describe is not ideal because I'm not just looking for myself, it's also for other clients from different locations. I am looking for carriers that have good reach to multiple states, not just for myself.

    can try test IP using http://ping.pe/ ; http://ping.sx/ or https://dnstools.ws/

    covers majority of locations, though actual local ISPs might route differently.

  • @WebHorizon said:

    @ts001 said:

    @Neoon said:
    You get yourself 2 or more servers to compare, with specific test destinations.
    So you conclude tests and figure out which is better connected.

    https://github.com/Ne00n/latency-triangulator-integrator-analysator-7560b
    Before I add servers to my low latency network, I use that tool above.

    I think the tool you describe is not ideal because I'm not just looking for myself, it's also for other clients from different locations. I am looking for carriers that have good reach to multiple states, not just for myself.

    can try test IP using http://ping.pe/ ; http://ping.sx/ or https://dnstools.ws/

    covers majority of locations, though actual local ISPs might route differently.

    Thank you this is awesome!

    One more question: what kind of "carrier mix" should I be looking for? Is there a rule of thumb? More carriers = better = lower latency? 1 carrier = worse = high latency? Is a provider with 5 carriers going to be slower than a provider with 10 carriers?

  • Is there anything I should look for in the following categories? Does any of this matter for latency from different states?

    IPV4 PREFIXES: 55
    IPV4 PEERS: 8
    IPV4 UPSTREAMS: 5
    IPV6 PREFIXES: 3
    IPV6 PEERS: 7
    IPV6 UPSTREAMS: 4

  • We can always tag Shawn with @SmartHost and see if maybe he can work some magic in terms of getting better routes.

  • ts001ts001 Member
    edited September 12

    @SirFoxy said:
    Your probably better off with Chicago or Dallas in general.

    We tried Chicago (RackNerd) and Dallas (Linode) it does not have better routing for our users. We also tried Kansas (Wholesale Internet) and again worse routing than Exabyte's. I am very curious how this all works and would love to understand it better.

  • edited September 12

    @ts001 said:

    @SirFoxy said:
    Your probably better off with Chicago or Dallas in general.

    We tried Chicago (RackNerd) and Dallas (Linode) it does not have better routing for our users

    LMAO

    Try an actually good provider in Chicago, not some random ColoCrossing reseller crap.

    @TNAHosting is pretty good, as well as Vultr (their Chicago location is amazing in terms of connectivity).

    Here is where you can test Vultr:
    https://il-us-ping.vultr.com/

    And tnahosting:
    http://lg.chi.tnahosting.net/

    NFOServers also has a premium blend location in Chicago, and comes with a pretty good amount of resources for a pretty low price. ($9.99 for 12TB bandwidth, 2GB ram, 2 cores and 200GB storage).

    Here is where you can test nfoservers:
    https://www.nfoservers.com/networklocations.php

  • ts001ts001 Member
    edited September 12

    I think you're hitting the core of my question, which is how do I find providers which meet a requirement of "low latency." And it sounds like the way to do that is to look for "premium blend" of carriers? However I'm looking for a quantitative way of doing that. Is there a way of determining which VPS provider has a "premium blend" without relying on their promises and marketing-speech?

  • edited September 12

    @ts001 said:
    I think you're hitting the core of my question, which is how do I find providers which meet a requirement of "low latency." And it sounds like the way to do that is to look for "premium blend" of carriers? However I'm looking for a quantitative way of doing that. Is there a way of determining which VPS provider has a "premium blend" without relying on their promises and marketing-speech?

    Use the testing links that I added as an edit to my post.

    Also - never trust a providers word that they are the best. Just use the tools that they provide to do your own research, and determine if they are the best for you :-)

  • @NobodyInteresting said:

    @ts001 said:
    I think you're hitting the core of my question, which is how do I find providers which meet a requirement of "low latency." And it sounds like the way to do that is to look for "premium blend" of carriers? However I'm looking for a quantitative way of doing that. Is there a way of determining which VPS provider has a "premium blend" without relying on their promises and marketing-speech?

    Use the testing links that I added as an edit to my post.

    Also - never trust a providers word that they are the best. Just use the tools that they provide to do your own research, and determine if they are the best for you :-)

    I'm not sure a simple traceroute helps as that does not tell me "premium carrier mix." It simply shows how I alone route to the server, not many different clients route to the server.

  • @ts001 said:

    @NobodyInteresting said:

    @ts001 said:
    I think you're hitting the core of my question, which is how do I find providers which meet a requirement of "low latency." And it sounds like the way to do that is to look for "premium blend" of carriers? However I'm looking for a quantitative way of doing that. Is there a way of determining which VPS provider has a "premium blend" without relying on their promises and marketing-speech?

    Use the testing links that I added as an edit to my post.

    Also - never trust a providers word that they are the best. Just use the tools that they provide to do your own research, and determine if they are the best for you :-)

    I'm not sure a simple traceroute helps as that does not tell me "premium carrier mix." It simply shows how I alone route to the server, not many different clients route to the server.

    Ask your client to do mtr/traceroute the server IP from their network.

    🌈 A simple uptime dashboard using UptimeRobot API https://upy.duo.ovh
    🌈 BuyVM, GreenCloudVPS, Gullo, Hetzner, HostHatch, InceptionHosting, LetBox, MaxKVM, MrVM, VirMach.

  • @ts001 said:

    @SirFoxy said:
    Your probably better off with Chicago or Dallas in general.

    We tried Chicago (RackNerd) and Dallas (Linode) it does not have better routing for our users. We also tried Kansas (Wholesale Internet) and again worse routing than Exabyte's. I am very curious how this all works and would love to understand it better.

    As @NobodyInteresting said the blend matters more than the location. Though most of the midwest such as Denver is routed through Dallas or Chicago. WSI uses mostly HE & Cogent and so does CC I believe. You could try giving NFOServers in Chicago a try.

  • SmartHostSmartHost Member, Provider

    @NobodyInteresting said:
    We can always tag Shawn with @SmartHost and see if maybe he can work some magic in terms of getting better routes.

    That is a direct IP from them for testing, try one of ours instead and see if any better:
    66.11.121.2
    37.221.111.1
    193.7.200.1

    ~ SMARTHOST

    SmartHost™ - Intelligent Hosting! - Multiple Locations - US/EU! - Join our Resale Program
    https://www.smarthost.net - sales@smarthost.net - Ultra-Fast NVME SSD KVM VPS - $2.95/month!

  • WebHorizonWebHorizon Member, Provider
    edited September 12

    @ts001 said:
    Thank you this is awesome!

    One more question: what kind of "carrier mix" should I be looking for? Is there a rule of thumb? More carriers = better = lower latency? 1 carrier = worse = high latency? Is a provider with 5 carriers going to be slower than a provider with 10 carriers?

    Not necessary always I will say, it depends & there are lot of variables at play.

  • Bumping this in case anyone else has advice on how to measure connectivity from multiple locations

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

    Well, you can use ping.pe or RIPE Atlas.

    Thanked by 1yoursunny

    Clouvider Limited - Leading Hosting & Connectivity Partner || Dedicated Server Sale from £39/m - Our Latest LET Offer
    Cloud Web Hosting | SSD & SAS HA OnApp VPS | US, UK, NL & DE Dedicated Servers | Network Services | Colocation | Managed Services

  • DPDP Member, The Domain Guy

    @ts001 said:
    Bumping this in case anyone else has advice on how to measure connectivity from multiple locations

    https://mtr.sh
    https://ping.sx
    https://ping.pe

    DP - Tech and Hosting-related Domain Names for sale.
    Create an account on Dynadot via my referral link and spend $9.99 within 48 hours to receive $5 DynaDollars!

  • JasonMJasonM Member
    edited September 14

    @WebHorizon said: can try test IP using

    thanks. I'll test it for my ips

    Thanked by 1WebHorizon
Sign In or Register to comment.