How does geography affect network latency?

Solution 1:

All other things equal, you will have additional 44 milliseconds of latency just because of the speed of light. Give or take 1/20 of a second for each packet roundtrip. Not much for typical web usage. Passable for ssh sessions. Substantial if you access your DB directly with a lot of small consecutive transactions.

I've ignored extra latency caused by additional routers/repeaters, which could be much, much higher. I've assumed the distance 4400 km and speed of light in fiber 200000 km/s.

Solution 2:

There is a distance delay and all other things being equal (routing efficiency, processing overhead, congestion, etc.) a site on the west coast accessed by a host on the east coast is going to take longer than if that site is on the east coast but we're talking milliseconds here.

Solution 3:

We had a client that we spent a fair bit of time going around and around with related to this. They originally were hosted in New York, and their staff is mostly located in the Boston area. They were moving their servers to our facility located in Denver, about two-thirds of the way across the country.

Once they moved, they started bringing up performance problems from their Comcast links in home offices. They used to have <10ms latency, and it went up to 80-ish ms. They noticed slower performance reaching their sites, but said "maybe we are just going to have to put up with going from blazingly fast to mere mortal speeds." They seemed to realize that there were limitations because of the geography, and that their users on the west coast would be potentially getting better performance.

We went back and forth a few times. After around 6 months, we switched to a different primary upstream ISP, for reasons unrelated to this client (better pricing, more bandwidth, unhappy with the number of maintenance windows on the other provider), and with the new provider we were getting around 45ms average latency for this client. At this point their performance concerns seem to have gone away.

Just to give you some experience about one case where this sort of issue was seen and the numbers related to it.

Try using "mtr" to show information about the latency and packet loss to the different remote ends. Unless you fully understand "slow path" routing, ignore anything but the last hop listed on that output. Van Jacobson says that humans notice latency starting at 400ms, but realize that many connections require multiple back-and-forth exchanges, so a 100ms latency can quickly add up to a second...

From my experience, 250ms latency starts to feel like a noticeably slow connection. 10ms or better feels like a blazing connection. It really depends on what you're doing.


Solution 4:

Well, packets travel down the wire at the close enough to the speed of light that raw transmission time is negligible when compared to other factors. What matters is efficiency of routing and how fast routing devices can do the routing. That unfortunately can't be determined purely based on geographical distance. There is a strong correlation between distance and latency, but there is not hard and fast rule that I am aware of.

Solution 5:

The number of hops between point A and point B will introduce latency. Count the number of hops since this is your best indicator.

A few words of caution. Methods for evaluating the network path are not consistent with how the actual packet will flow. ICMP may be routed and given a difference QoS. Also, traceroute typically looks in one direction, i.e. source to destination. Here are some handy tricks.

For traceroute, try using -I, -U or -T to see how the path varies. Also look at -t 16 or -t 8. traceroute

Ping is actually pretty helpful. ping -R will show you the path that it takes to return! If it differs from the path going out, then see where it is going. ping