Hello everyone, I am looking to host MetaTrader4 on a low latency US based server for automated trading with OANDA. Connectivity and uptime are most important. I'm considering the pros and cons of using Amazon Web Services vs a VPS... please can anybody offer any thoughts or advice on this and if VPS, are there any decent ones with guaranteed uptime that anybody can recommend? Thanks Ridu
Brain usage: AWS is a data center that is not necessarily close to an exchange. See the problem? I do not do Metatrader - I do CME futures only. I use virtual servers for trading (but other than you I actually do my own virtual servers = rent the hardware). I selected a host in Chicago, and I get VERY good connectivity o broker and data provider. Talk LOOOW single digit (broker = 1ms). Amazon is a data center that is not close, I would be back to 10ms. Why go for something like that when the difference in cost is neglegible? Colocate as close as makes financial sense.
Thanks NetTecture, please excuse my ignorance I am not well versed in server technology I would like to know about 'VPS' versus a 'Cloud' server, is it correct that Cloud is more reliable? Fail safe, security and latency are my key concerns.
Well, a CLOUD is "you have a VPS that is not on one computer but maybe on a set of and you order and tear them down as you please". That simple. Fail safe? Sure - in theory. Sadly you need your own cloud to be really sure. Hyper-V 3 for example allows mirrored mchines given specific hardware, i.e. a VPS runs on 2 machines with the same memory layout and is real time synced - one computer fails, that is it (the other takes over without dropping for example TCP connections). Good - but NO cloud provider offers that, it is cost intensive (2x the ressources + the special hardware you need to handle somthing like that). Also, coulds normally are EXPENSIVE compared to hardware or VPS, as the flexibility (start, stop, pay by hour) comes with a hugh price tag. my own VPS run in my own private cloud, which - at the moment - has 5 servers.
Locating close to the exchange only works if you're getting data directly from the exchange. If you're data is coming from a commercial data provider or broker , like say esignal or TT, then being close to the exchange will not help much. You want to closer to the data server of your data provider.
Yes and no. Sorry. Even commercial poviders sometimes offer alternative hookup points close to the exchange. You name TT - guess what, TT is not a provider, it is a technology. Your broker has to implement TT and provides the data feed from his severs. Bad for you that I AM using TT. The Crossland (my futures broker) TT machines are located in Chicago. I have a 1ms delay towards them. From there the data goes directly to the exchange. Nanex (my other data provider) has different endpoints and can hook you to a Chicago link when you ask. Naturally if you use IB or some other general shop that may be different, but then - there may be alternatives to that, it is all about putting 5 minutes effort into it.
I think you're mistaken about TT. They run their own data servers and the data is distributed to customers directly. Brokers sign up to offer the TT front end product but they do not provide their own data for TT front end. I have a attached an image of were TTs servers are located. This is from their website.
Interesting and possible. This also would explain why I do not see the difference - they do have a data location in chicago anyway. Result is the same. So, the argument in the core still stands - you mvoe close to where your data is located and processed, and all major exchanges have colocation facilities, so you go close to (i.e. same city). Amazon etc. are in the middle of nowhere. Note that if you do "US Stocks" you also go in the middle of nowhere - exchanges are well distributed. You can only go close to one place Sadly. But if you rade one specific exchange mostly, then it makes no sense to go AWS somewhere in the middle of nowhere - especially as it is a LOT more expensive than a decent regular hosting center.
Unless you're high frequency, a few milliseconds here and there is not going to make a difference. Human response times are at about 300 milliseconds. Probably closer to a full second when tired from starring at a screen all day. Any automated system no matter where the servers are is still going to destroy human trading.
No, sorry, totally crap statement. Ther are a couple of scenarios where millisencds may well count: * Risk control. The time between execution and order update may mean money, regardless how fast you trade. * Market breakdowns (flash crash). We track bid/ask integrity and regarless of the strategy, there are breakers that rip us out of hte market when certain stability events occur. I do not care how long my trade is, I want t obe out of the market before the order book totally disappears, which means being out before the people that dont pay for colocation Plus, again - this is not "does it make sense to have an autoamted server". You basically argue oit is ok to take an inferior product for a higher price than to go close to the exchange for a lower price. I hate to be direct, but this is a retarded point of view. I know many people that trade from home - fine. But IF you go colocation, why not go to a place as good as possible? In my case, I run a 125ms delay to the exchanges from my offices (located in europe), so - for me it was clear I need trading to be in the USA. So, why should I go to something crappy for that like AWS? I pay 180 USD per month now for a system. I have 1 ms ping time to TT. I have a quad core + hyper-threading, 16gb memory, 120gb ssd + 1000gb hard disc, 10tb traffic and I have my own computers as fallback in my office to shut everything down in case an issue happens. This is a quite higher end setup (a lot larger than most VPS are, but I run multiple virtual machines). But it is cheaper than a comparable Amazon setup - by a larger margin, and it is better located.