Can you move the NA servers from Canada to the US?

Well, those "parts of asia" are also in "parts of the US" with google fiber~

There are eastern European countries with better internet then Canada and the USA. That siad i thought most of Canada internet traffic is routed into the USA anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyvid

Level 3 is the issue, not server location. Only thing SE can do is ask them not to throttle FFXIV.

---

Level3 isn't "throttling" XIV traffic. Ports are getting over-saturated because the ISP's aren't revising their agreements fast enough to accommodate the heavy increases in traffic we've seen in the last year. When the congestion kicks up, several mechanics kick in to try to avoid congestion failure. Some are built into the transmission protocol itself (error-correction and flow control measures within TCP can slow a connection down when it detects signs of congestion and errata in the integrity checks), and the providers will have their own shaping policies that will prioritize delivery based on the type of data in the stream. Secure Financial data for instance will have high priority, while UDP traffic (a protocol heavily used in this game's predecessor) may get dropped further down the list.

There is lots of data out there demonstrating this problem. Much of it has been posted or linked to on these forums in the Tech Support section. You can find some good blog posts on it by googling this phrase:

level3.net chicken

It's been an ongoing problem for over a decade now... and as more people leave traditional media sources and turn to internet streams, it's just going to get worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illya

They don't need to move the servers specifically to the US, but they need to move to any city which doesn't have a primary backbone route through Level 3 Communications.

Level 3 is practically a 3rd world country's backbone.

---

Must mention that Level3 isn't the only one providing peering/transit into Montreal. It's one of several... just happens to be one of the more prominent ones chosen by some providers (but it's not the ONLY option available). Level3 also isn't the only one suffering the same port congestion problem plaguing the exchanges. TATA and Cogent are no stranger to this issue in NA, nor are TI, Telstra, and BT (among others) for other countries. So this problem can still persist regardless of where they put the servers--someone will always potentially be dealing with these issues, especially when it comes to crossing national borders and oceans.

It's an issue of outdated policies managing the interconnectivity between all the ISP's that link together to make up what we simply call the "Internet"--the result is high packet loss and extreme latency spikes. Throwing more bandwidth at your connection won't resolve it either (unless perhaps doing so moves you to a larger selection of broadcast channels or different gateway, increasing your chances of getting on a cleaner port assignment down the road). The problem is with throughput at the exchange points between the different ISP's--that is where increasing bandwidth would be better implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zumi

Here is an MTR of one of the time level3 was messing up FFXIV that I couldn't do Titan EX.

http://i.imgur.com/Sc0y7Pn.jpg

---

It's not just level3 giving you problems there--you're also getting an extra 1/8 second spike injected from Comcast before you even get past Seattle. This can potentially compound what might be manageable further down the path. Not saying Level3 isn't a problem... just that it isn't your only problem. Comcast needs to get it's act together as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalandros

Well, those "parts of asia" are also in "parts of the US" with google fiber~

---

Google fiber doesn't help you much when you are partnered with someone running copper.

Just saying, until there is a MUCH wider scale implementation of larger gigabit transit across North America like in Asia... we will always be behind in that regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laraul

• Level 3 is also the largest competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) and the 2nd largest provider of fiber optic internet access (based on coverage area) in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_3_Communications

I live in the southwestern U.S. and my ping time to the servers is just under 80ms, which is fairly optimal.

---

You sure are good at quoting Wikipedia.

And yet players of MMOs have been complaining about routing through Level 3 for many years across multiple games. None of this is new news.

No need to move the NA servers:

1. Canada = NA.
2. Believe it or not, no matter where they put the servers in the NA, someone is going to have a larger ping. Even if they put it in the 'middle' of the NA playerbase, due to the way information is routed, it won't necessarily make for 'shorter' overall pings for everyone.
3. Many times, your actual type of internet and/or provider is the bigger cause of longer pings than server location (If your provider is routing you longer/throttling you/slower in general you'll likely never have a 'good' ping)
-Example:
I live in WV but actually have a far better ping to the servers in Montreal than one of my old static mates had who lived in the burbs of Philly. This seemed odd, until we realized: My provider/signal went from Montreal>DC>my location w/ little to no throttling. (between the government and high tech industries around DC, the internet in this area is pretty decent...it HAS to be when you have companies like google in your back yard). However, the static mates path was Montreal>New York>Philly>podunk>house.....so they had 2 'extra' routes than I had...even though technically, no one would expect my 'rural' location to be better than his 'urban' one.
4. This is very much a 'can't please everyone' problem. No matter where the server is located, someone is going to get the 'longer' ping. And tbh, I think just the fact that the west coast is closer to JA servers than East Coast will tend to have SE favor shorter East Coast pings...(yes I know pings from the West Coast to JA are still large), I'm just saying in their minds it seems they put servers in 'acceptable' ping locations and then based the games 'movement' mechanics on that 'acceptable' ping. California to Japan likely falls within their 'acceptable' range...but New York to Japan likely did not. I just don't see them moving the servers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinseykinz

No need to move the NA servers:

1. Canada = NA.
2. Believe it or not, no matter where they put the servers in the NA, someone is going to have a larger ping. Even if they put it in the 'middle' of the NA playerbase, due to the way information is routed, it won't necessarily make for 'shorter' overall pings for everyone.

---

If they did move it, the best place for them to put the servers considering canada and all the way down to brazil would be Chicago.
They've got some really nice servers for gaming there. along with pretty decent datacenter/flow

Here's a neat tool to help demonstrate what Kinseykins and I have recently touched base on:

http://www.akamai.com/html/technology/dataviz2.html

Pick your starting and ending destinations and see the projected differences in ping between generic routing and Akamai's more optimized routes.

Lots of other interesting tools available at that page as well... some of you may want to select some of the others from the drop box up top. Lots of interesting stats available.