Ping - APAC Region

Sat Apr 2 23:12:19 UTC 2011

Also remember, you would be serving Australia only from Australia. if I'm
not mistaken, the Australia backbone is more or less volume based
cahrged...

http://www.aarnet.edu.au/services/aarnet-charging.aspx
"AARNet3 charges are different for Shareholders (Members) and for Non
Shareholders (Associates and Affiliates).
  Billing 
  On
Net and Off Net subscriptions are calculated in October each year, and
invoices must be delivered soon after to allow sufficient time for
customers to pay in advance for the following calendar year.
  For
those invoices not paid in full and in advance, On Net and Off Net
Subscriptions, and Access Charges are invoiced by quarter and in
advance. 
  All Usage charges, including Excess Traffic, are invoiced
retrospectively after each quarter. "

On 4/3/11 9:40 , "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 06:33:07PM +0100, Robert Lusby wrote:
>>> Looking at hosting some servers in Hong Kong, to serve the APAC
>>>region. Our
>>> client is worried that this may slow things down in their Australia
>>>region,
>>> and are wondering whether hosting the servers in an Australian
>>>data-centre
>>> would be a better option.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any statistics on this?
>>
>> No formal statistics, just a lot of experience.  You may be unsurprised
>>to
>> learn that serving into Australia from outside Australia is slower than
>> serving from within Australia.  That being said, there's a fair bit less
>> distance for the light to travel from Hong Kong or anywhere in the
>>region
>> than from the US.
>
>Given that the bulk of the population density in Australia is on the
>eastern coast near Sydney, and the *only* fiber path going anywhere
>near Asia from Sydney does so via Guam, the light path traveled from
>Sydney to Guam to La Union (PH)  to Hong Kong isn't appreciably
>shorter than the light path from Sydney to Hawaii to the US--which is
>covered by roughly 6x as many fiber runs as the Guam pathway, and
>is thus somewhat cheaper to get onto--you might as well host on the
>west coast of the US as in Hong Kong.  (and *that* was a horrific
>run-on sentence!)
>
>If I look at average data for the past five years between Sydney and
>Hong Kong, San Jose, Singapore, and Los Angeles, on average it's
>better to serve Sydney from Los Angeles than Hong Kong or Singapore:
>
>mpetach at netops:/home/mrtg/public_html/performance> ~/tmp/avgperf.pl AUE
>HKI
>total daily data files read: 1559
>AUE to HKI latency (min/avg/max): 134.216/173.273/1052.158
>mpetach at netops:/home/mrtg/public_html/performance> ~/tmp/avgperf.pl AUE
>SJC
>total daily data files read: 1558
>AUE to SJC latency (min/avg/max): 149.829/176.674/308.637
>mpetach at netops:/home/mrtg/public_html/performance> ~/tmp/avgperf.pl AUE
>SG1
>total daily data files read: 1558
>AUE to SG1 latency (min/avg/max): 101.871/204.485/999
>mpetach at netops:/home/mrtg/public_html/performance> ~/tmp/avgperf.pl AUE
>LAX
>total daily data files read: 931
>AUE to LAX latency (min/avg/max): 157.603/166.720/999
>mpetach at netops:/home/mrtg/public_html/performance>
>
>
>> That is predicated on having good direct links, which is
>> eye-wateringly expensive if you're used to US data costs (data going
>>from
>> China to Australia via San Jose...  aaargh).  Then again, hosting within
>> Australia is similarly expensive, so splitting your presence isn't
>>going to
>> help you any from a cost PoV.
>
>It's not really a matter of eye-wateringly expensive, so much as simple
>basic existence; there's no direct Sydney to southern Asia fiber, at the
>moment; the best you can do is hop through Papua New Guinea to
>Guam, and then back across into southern Asia.  (or overshoot up to
>Japan, and  then bounce your way back down from there).
>
>Matt
>