Does geographical distance from the user to the host server affect web page performance?

For example, if I log on to a host server on the other side of the planet and log on to a host server in my own city, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, what is the difference in speed performance, if any?





If slower, by what percentage roughly?
Does geographical distance from the user to the host server affect web page performance?
To get to a webpage you need to go through routers. The delay is all dependent on what route the routers send the information. Therefore, it's possible that a web server on the other side of the planet has very fast connections and less routers to go through than a server in the next city. Therefore, it's impossible to say that geographical distance is the only cause. It isn't.
Does geographical distance from the user to the host server affect web page performance?
nah not as far asi know
Reply:Theoretically yes. But the speed of the host server has so much more impact on speed, you'd never know the difference.


The speed of light, at which these signals travel, can get a signal around the earth 7 1/2 times in one second.


You have delays built in of course, because of the short stops the signal has in various computers on the way.
Reply:Geographical distance is becoming less of a factor on web page preformance with expanding better quality communcations lines.
Reply:Well, geographical distance dosent really mater. What do matters is the number of people conected to the server, and the speed of their internet.
Reply:There will be a difference in speed given the fact that the time to send data will be longer as the one on the other side of the world has to send it further. Data does not travel instantaneously, nor at the speed of light (even in Fibre Optics it travels at the speed of light in that glass), therefore if it has less distance to travel (i.e. the local host) then the data will arrive more quickly.





In addition the one on the other side of the world will most likely have to go through more routers etc and get switched around more taking time. For instance getting from the US to the UK it would have to work its way up the US heirerachy until it gets to a system that can send it transatlantic. Once here in the UK (most likely point of entry at LINX [London INternet eXchange]) it will then usually sift down the BT core network to get to the right part of the country (to the nearest major city) then the nearest town, nearest exchange then the correct circuit until its with you. A local host only has to navigate accross the BT core network (or even a local network!) so less switches/routers to go through.





The traffic going accross the atlantic in particular is substantial and subject to delays due to the very limited badwidth offered by connection media (cables and satellites) used. So if you can bypass this (i.e. keep it local, at least in the same country) then it should be quicker. This is particularly noticeable if the underwater cables break (which they occaisionally do). The routers and switches automatically reroute the data so that it gets to the destinations required but will take a slower route (they always try to take the fastest route) sometimes going the other way around the world. This is when the whole using more routers and distance bit is most noticeable!








EDIT: As other people point out though, these are all very minor delays with today's fast communications links but in speed critical devices they are noticeable
Reply:Yes, in 2 ways. The physical time it takes to travel along a wire is determined by the speed of light, c, therefore the greater the distance the longer the time.





In more practical terms the further away you are the more servers/routers you have to 'hop' through to get to your destination. This can add a lag of between 50ms-500ms per jump.





In realility you shouldn't be talking more than a 10% dip in average performance.
Reply:I`ve never had any problems, faster than a speeding bullet and sharp as a needle :-) 8MB broadband :-)