Co-location Question

O

OldGoat

Question: What is the advantage of co-locating at CME?

All orders must be placed through a broker (IB in my case). Presumably, that means that the order must go from Aurora, IL to the broker (IB server's for the USA are in Greenwich, CT) and then back to Aurora, IL. Seems to me that this is added latency.

While I understand the benefits of being close to the server you are communicating with, I don't see that co-location in Aurora accomplishes this. And, while I don't know the cost figures, I seriously doubt that I can justify the headaches and expense of joining CME so that I can be my own broker.

If I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

Any information that you care to share on data centers near IB's server farm would be appreciated.

Thanks
 
Some technology providers have their servers in Aurora - Rithmic for example.
(I believe CQG has their servers split in 3 locations, 1 of these being Aurora)
 
IB have a gateway in Equinix NY4. Most equity exchanges, including cboe, are in this data center so cost is high. www.fcm360.com can offer a server in this datacenter for about $1k+$750 for cross connect, a month. If cost is an issue contact www.speedytradingservers.com about $170-$210 a month for dedicated, $80 a month for vps but they are in another New Jersey data centre 2ms from IB. Alternatively you can get a 2u rack in IB connecticut for $2k a month, raise a ticket at Ib and you will get the email address of the correct department at IB to contact.
 
just21 said:
New Jersey data centre 2ms from IB. Alternatively you can get a 2u rack in IB connecticut for $2k a month
More...

Thanks, that is helpful information. A 2 microsecond latency to IB would be adequate for my system (currently at about 20ms). I doubt the incremental improvement in latency for a rack at IB can justify the additional cost.
 
OldGoat said:
Thanks, that is helpful information. A 2 microsecond latency to IB would be adequate for my system (currently at about 20ms). I doubt the incremental improvement in latency for a rack at IB can justify the additional cost.
More...

Just go slightly north to the Stamford/Norwalk area. It's not going to be colo at IB but you can get a decent hosted service for pretty cheap up there - and the dark fiber routes between many of the CT datacenters and NJ datacenters are fairly competitive in terms of latency.
 
OldGoat said:
Question: What is the advantage of co-locating at CME?

All orders must be placed through a broker (IB in my case). Presumably, that means that the order must go from Aurora, IL to the broker (IB server's for the USA are in Greenwich, CT) and then back to Aurora, IL. Seems to me that this is added latency.

While I understand the benefits of being close to the server you are communicating with, I don't see that co-location in Aurora accomplishes this. And, while I don't know the cost figures, I seriously doubt that I can justify the headaches and expense of joining CME so that I can be my own broker.

If I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

Any information that you care to share on data centers near IB's server farm would be appreciated.

Thanks
More...

If you have enough AUM and the ability to code to the CME iLink, you can get a direct connection in to the CME matching engine. This requires 1st being certified with iLink and then finding a broker that will approve you to use their iLink Session ID. This will be the fastest connection available.

1245
 
OldGoat said:
A 2 microsecond latency to IB would be adequate for my system (currently at about 20ms).
More...

Correction: that should read "2 millisecond".

PING gw1.ibllc.com (208.245.107.3): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 208.245.107.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=246 time=21.645 ms
64 bytes from 208.245.107.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=246 time=22.205 ms
64 bytes from 208.245.107.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=246 time=20.432 ms
64 bytes from 208.245.107.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=246 time=22.710 ms
64 bytes from 208.245.107.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=246 time=20.418 ms
64 bytes from 208.245.107.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=246 time=21.297 ms
^C
--- gw1.ibllc.com ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 20.418/21.451/22.710/0.849 ms​
 
1245 said:
you can get a direct connection in to the CME matching engine. ... This will be the fastest connection available.

1245
More...

Thanks, I doubt that my system would get better fills from the improved latency. At least not enough to justify the cost.
 
WinstonTJ said:
Just go slightly north to the Stamford/Norwalk area. It's not going to be colo at IB but you can get a decent hosted service for pretty cheap up there - and the dark fiber routes between many of the CT datacenters and NJ datacenters are fairly competitive in terms of latency.
More...

I think that a datacenter near IB's Greenwich site makes the most sense. However, I haven't been able to locate any CT data centers. Probably not looking in the right places. Any ideas on where I can find a list?

BTW, latency is not a major issue for me. Any datacenter in CT is likely to be much faster than my current 21 ms. My primary interest is the reliability and stability of a datacenter. I'm looking for a good VPS to start and may eventually want a dedicated machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top