Among many overseas servers, Los Angeles and Europe (such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands) are two popular choices. Many users will struggle in the early stages of deployment: Which of the Los Angeles and European servers is more suitable for access from mainland China? Which one can better balance network quality, price, and service stability?
Access speed differences from geography and network paths
1. Closer geographical location ≠ faster network speed
On the surface, European servers are not much farther away from China than the United States, and even some areas such as western Russia and Turkey are closer than some areas in the United States. However, the physical distance of the server is not the only factor that determines the access speed. What is more important is the degree of optimization of the network path and transmission protocol between the two places.
2. Los Angeles is an important export city directly connected to China
The international communication nodes in mainland China are mainly concentrated in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Hong Kong. Among them, China Telecom, China Unicom, and China Mobile, the three major operators, have long deployed large-scale export links in Los Angeles, the United States, especially Telecom's CN2 line and Unicom's AS9929, both of which have dedicated POP nodes in Los Angeles, forming a high-quality Sino-US communication backbone network.
The network path between European servers and China is relatively complex. Chinese users usually need to go through the following paths to access European servers:
Shanghai/Guangzhou exit → Singapore/Hong Kong transit → European core nodes (such as Frankfurt, Paris) or via Russia → Eastern Europe relay → Central Europe
These paths have many relays, large fluctuations, and poor stability, especially during peak hours, they are more likely to have congestion, unstable delays, packet loss and other problems.
Conclusion: From the perspective of network paths, Los Angeles, USA has better direct connection conditions, faster and more stable access speed.
Compatibility from the perspective of return lines and operator support
1. Los Angeles, USA has return lines from mainstream operators
China Telecom: CN2 GIA direct connection (such as HE.net, PCCW nodes)
China Unicom: AS9929 dedicated line backhaul
China Mobile: CMI China Mobile International Line
These dedicated lines can realize the optimized return channel when Chinese users visit Los Angeles, and the speed is significantly faster than the ordinary international bandwidth that detours through Singapore, Tokyo and other regions.
2. Most servers in Europe use ordinary BGP international lines
Most European service providers use traditional international BGP lines, that is, international routing networks composed of multiple operators. Although the transmission effect is good on a global scale, there is no optimized channel for access to China. When mainland users visit, they are likely to transmit through multiple transit nodes, resulting in slow speed and unstable connection.
Conclusion: In terms of return routes, Los Angeles servers in the United States are more suitable for access to China's three networks and have obvious advantages.
From the perspective of price and cost performance
1. The price competition of Los Angeles servers in the United States is fierce
Since the United States is the world's largest data center deployment country, there are many service providers and sufficient market competition. As a popular node, Los Angeles already has a mature bandwidth architecture and commercial support system.
Currently, the price of common configurations (such as Intel Xeon 8 cores / 16G RAM / 100M bandwidth / SSD) ranges from ￥400-￥700/month. The CN2 line will be more expensive, but you can choose a BGP optimized node according to your budget to get a better experience.
2. European servers are priced high and services are complex
Servers in Europe are often expensive due to high electricity prices, high labor costs, and high data compliance requirements. Under the same configuration, European servers are often 30%-50% more expensive than Los Angeles. Some service providers come with VAT or data compliance clauses, and the threshold for operation and management is relatively higher.
Conclusion: Los Angeles servers in the United States are more cost-effective in terms of price, bandwidth, and configuration, and are suitable for budget-controlled projects.
Looking at future operations from the perspective of resource matching and scalability
There are many server manufacturers in the United States and flexible services: such as Warner Cloud, which supports monthly/annual billing, and the hardware is elastic and scalable, which is convenient for project trial and error and upgrades.
European manufacturers mainly operate locally, with standardized management but poor flexibility, scarce IP resources, and difficulty in expansion. Most technical support is in English or German, and communication efficiency is low.
Conclusion: If the project has iterative expansion needs, Los Angeles servers in the United States are more conducive to long-term maintenance and upgrades.
In general, the Los Angeles server in the United States is significantly better than the European server in terms of network path, access speed, operator return optimization, cost control, and business compatibility, especially for access scenarios in mainland China. Unless the business is clearly aimed at users in Europe, or there are compliance requirements for EU data supervision, it is not recommended to deploy the main server in Europe.
For most start-up projects, cross-border websites, live broadcast systems, game online, proxy nodes and other business types, the Los Angeles server in the United States is preferred, which not only ensures a better access experience, but also has a higher fault tolerance rate and service flexibility. It is a wise choice that takes into account pragmatism and cost-effectiveness.
