Reasons for choosing Web Hosting in India based datacenteres
India has been emerging as a very big market in web hosting industry. With the localization of web services & websites the requirement for choosing web hosting in india is in increasing day by day. The web pages become more complex, referencing resources from numerous domains, DNS lookups can become a significant bottleneck in the browsing experience. Whenever a client needs to query a DNS resolver over the network, the latency introduced can be significant, depending on the proximity and number of nameservers the resolver has to query. For example, web hosting of your website in India & US with same content, when you run the tracert command on your both of the website on command prompt then you will find out that US website will take 15 – 20 Hopes and Local Indian website takes only 3 – 5 Hopes to reach your website that means Indian website will take much lesser time to open than US website. Which indicates that having web hosting in india have its own advantages which includes latency reaons. too
There are two main components to DNS latency when you compare web hosting in India and else where.
* Latency between the client (user) and DNS resolving server. In most cases this is largely due to the usual round-trip time (RTT) constraints in networked systems: geographical distance between client and server machines; network congestion; web hosting packet loss and long retransmit delays (one second on average); overloaded servers, denial-of-service attacks and so on.
* Latency between resolving servers and other nameservers. This source of latency is caused primarily by the following factors:
1. Cache misses. If a response cannot be served from a resolver’s cache, but requires recursively querying other nameservers, the added network latency is considerable, especially if the authoritative servers are geographically remote.
2. Underprovisioning. If DNS resolvers are overloaded, they must queue DNS resolution requests and responses, and may begin dropping and retransmitting packets.
3. Malicious traffic. Even if a DNS service is overprovisioned, DoS traffic can place undue load on the servers. Similarly, Kaminsky-style attacks can involve flooding resolvers with queries that are guaranteed to bypass the cache and require outgoing requests for resolution.
We believe that the cache miss factor is the most dominant cause of DNS latency.
Cache misses
Even if a resolver has abundant local resources, the fundamental delays associated with talking to remote nameservers are hard to avoid. In other words, assuming the resolver is provisioned well enough so that cache hits take zero time on the server-side, cache misses remain very expensive in terms of latency. To handle a miss, a resolver has to talk to at least one, but often two or more external nameservers. Operating the Googlebot web crawler, we have observed an average resolution time of 130 ms for nameservers that respond. However, a full 4-6% of requests simply time out, due to UDP packet loss and servers being unreachable. If we take into account failures such as packet loss, dead nameservers, DNS configuration errors, etc., the actual average end-to-end resolution time is 300-400 ms. However, there is high variance and a long tail.
Though the cache miss rate may vary among DNS servers, cache misses are fundamentally difficult to avoid, for the following reasons:
* Internet size and growth. Quite simply, as the Internet grows, both through the addition of new users and of new sites, most content is of marginal interest. While a few sites (and consequently DNS names) are very popular, most are of interest to only a few users and are accessed rarely; so the majority of requests result in cache misses.
* Low time-to-live (TTL) values. The trend towards lower DNS TTL values means that resolutions need more frequent lookups.
* Cache isolation. DNS servers are typically deployed behind load balancers which assign queries to different machines at random. This results in each individual server maintaining a separate cache rather than being able to reuse cached resolutions from a shared pool.
For closed resolvers, this is not really an issue. For open resolvers, the closer your servers are located to your users, the less latency they will see at the client end. In addition, having sufficient geographical coverage can indirectly improve end-to-end latency, as nameservers typically return results optimized for the DNS resolver’s location. That is, if a content provider hosts mirrored sites around the world, that provider’s nameservers will return the IP address in closest proximity to the DNS resolver.

