Question

BEST DATACENTER LOCATION FOR CONNECTION FROM ANGOLA, SOUTH AFRICA, NIGERIA

Posted May 11, 2013 8.5k views
Hi people, please recommend the best data center location for faster connection from Angola, South Africa, Nigeria, for an ERP SOLUTION PROVIDER...
Add a comment
sinequanonlda
By:
sinequanonlda
Add a comment
1 comment
  • TISAO September 13, 2018
    Reply Report

    WE NEED A DATA CENTER IN NIGERIA, we have 120million+ internet users waiting for digital fast data center solution, to enhance more speed for our local market. it will also give South Africa, Angola, DR congo faster connection, as nigeria is closer to them than any other DataCenter worldwide

    Vote for Datacenter in Nigeria by clicking this link

These answers are provided by our Community. If you find them useful, show some love by clicking the heart. If you run into issues leave a comment, or add your own answer to help others.

×
6 answers
bernardhamann June 3, 2015

Ran the tests and it seems like London is the best.

Created a droplet in each area pinged then all from Gauteng In South Africa

The droplets were destroyed after the test, so pinging then now probably will not work

The results are below

Hope this helps somebody

London

ping 46.101.10.5

  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=190.671 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=193.604 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=193.900 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=207.577 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=193.531 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=193.787 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=193.417 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=194.579 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=193.905 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=9 ttl=53 time=194.257 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.10.5: icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=192.390 ms

Amsterdam

ping 178.62.249.20

  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=0 ttl=49 time=196.574 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=219.386 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=296.206 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=233.734 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=234.163 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=5 ttl=49 time=249.948 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=6 ttl=49 time=281.564 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=7 ttl=49 time=235.288 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=8 ttl=49 time=247.079 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=9 ttl=49 time=254.173 ms
  • 64 bytes from 178.62.249.20: icmp_seq=10 ttl=49 time=283.847 ms

Frankfurt

ping 46.101.177.137

  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=0 ttl=49 time=282.889 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=210.056 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=321.036 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=239.363 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=258.921 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=5 ttl=49 time=280.314 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=6 ttl=49 time=301.748 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=7 ttl=49 time=528.038 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=8 ttl=49 time=648.839 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=9 ttl=49 time=209.517 ms
  • 64 bytes from 46.101.177.137: icmp_seq=10 ttl=49 time=279.778 ms

NewYork

ping 162.243.79.63

  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=0 ttl=49 time=268.165 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=355.483 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=353.273 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=371.580 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=291.472 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=5 ttl=49 time=310.665 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=6 ttl=49 time=262.831 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=7 ttl=49 time=349.183 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=8 ttl=49 time=372.575 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=9 ttl=49 time=289.339 ms
  • 64 bytes from 162.243.79.63: icmp_seq=10 ttl=49 time=293.676 ms

San-Francisco

ping 104.236.165.114

  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=0 ttl=49 time=400.683 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=420.914 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=460.752 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=462.616 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=345.708 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=5 ttl=49 time=546.621 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=6 ttl=49 time=421.449 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=7 ttl=49 time=443.264 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=8 ttl=49 time=466.482 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=9 ttl=49 time=345.482 ms
  • 64 bytes from 104.236.165.114: icmp_seq=10 ttl=49 time=407.146 ms

Singapore

ping 128.199.98.152

  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=0 ttl=49 time=581.932 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=628.273 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=656.095 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=649.416 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=662.857 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=5 ttl=49 time=635.535 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=6 ttl=49 time=641.698 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=7 ttl=49 time=689.463 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=8 ttl=49 time=669.045 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=9 ttl=49 time=643.674 ms
  • 64 bytes from 128.199.98.152: icmp_seq=10 ttl=49 time=681.581 ms
Reply Report
moisey May 12, 2013
Easiest thing to do is sign up and spin up a server in each of the locations we offer and do a simple ping test against the IPs.

Where you have the lowest latency is where you will have the best connectivity.

I'd guess that may be Amsterdam but I could be wrong.
Reply Report
kamaln7 May 12, 2013
You can ping the following IPs and measure the latency, as raiyu said, the lowest latency is where you will have the best connectivity.

NY - 198.211.116.146
AMS - 198.211.119.108
SF - 198.199.97.209
Reply Report
rahul.bansal July 6, 2013
AMS - 198.211.119.108 is not working
Reply Report
kamaln7 July 6, 2013
@rahul.bansal It's loading fine for me, what do you mean by 'not working'?
Reply Report
michael.hutchons August 13, 2014

Hi Kamal,

Not to hijack the thread, but are there any future plans for opening a DO data center in South Africa?

I know there will be huge support for DO services in SA. I personally prefer using DO over the local Cloud solutions but they still rule the roost with low latency.

Thanks,

Michael

Reply Report
  • kamaln7 August 13, 2014

    Hello,

    Unfortunately, we do not have any plans for a DC in SA. You can vote for this on our suggestions board: Datacenter in South Africa.

    Until then, I would recommend deploying your droplets in LON1 which should have the lowest latency to SA.

    Reply Report
  • norio September 2, 2014

    I can vouch for the LON1 location. Definitely faster than AMS. I have droplets in both locations.

    That said, I’m going right now to vote for a DC in ZA. 50ms pings would be better than 300ms :D

    <3 DigitalOcean

    Reply Report
Submit an Answer

Looking for something else?

Ask a new question Search for more help