Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in August 2010

Rank Company site OS Outage
hh:mm:ss
Failed
Req%
DNS Connect First
byte
Total
1 Rackspace Linux 0:00:00 0.026 0.057 0.042 0.084 0.084
2 New York Internet FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.026 0.163 0.047 0.105 0.257
3 Virtual Internet Linux 0:00:00 0.026 0.250 0.111 0.379 0.692
4 One.com Linux 0:00:00 0.030 0.218 0.085 0.170 0.170
5 www.qubenet.net Linux 0:00:00 0.030 0.135 0.104 0.214 0.757
6 www.uk2.net Linux 0:00:00 0.037 0.247 0.114 0.232 0.605
7 www.peer1.com Linux 0:00:00 0.041 0.225 0.010 0.028 0.071
8 www.serverbeach.com Linux 0:00:00 0.041 0.163 0.010 0.070 0.104
9 Datapipe FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.041 0.179 0.034 0.070 0.102
10 iWeb Technologies Linux 0:00:00 0.041 0.164 0.100 0.201 0.201

See full table

Rackspace was the most reliable hosting company in August 2010. Rackspace, which has data centres across the U.S., U.K. and Hong Kong, has recently expanded their UK headquarters in Middlesex, to cater for EMEA based customers.

Last month's most reliable hosting company, New York Internet, comes in at second place this month. New York Internet host part of the FreeBSD Project's infrastructure at their recently opened data centre based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

This month's third most reliable hosting company is U.K. based Virtual Internet with data centres present in Manchester and London. Fourth is low-cost shared hosting provider One.com and fifth is Qube Managed Services Limited with data centres based in London, New York and Zurich.

In the top 10 this month, all but 2 companies run Linux and there was an average of 0.03% failed requests to their sites from our performance collectors.

Netcraft measures and makes available the response times of around forty leading hosting providers' sites. The performance measurements are made at fifteen minute intervals from separate points around the internet, and averages are calculated over the immediately preceding 24 hour period.

From a customer's point of view, the percentage of failed requests is more pertinent than outages on hosting companies' own sites, as this gives a pointer to reliability of routing, and this is why we choose to rank our table by fewest failed requests, rather than shortest periods of outage.

Information on the measurement process and current measurements is available.