Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in February 2012

Rank Company site OS Outage
hh:mm:ss
Failed Req% DNS Connect First byte Total
1 Codero Linux 0:00:00 0.018 0.134 0.055 0.318 0.549
2 INetU Windows Server 2008 0:00:00 0.022 0.069 0.047 0.183 0.327
3 DinaHosting Linux 0:00:00 0.025 0.310 0.090 0.182 0.182
4 WestHost Linux 0:00:00 0.025 0.356 0.107 0.235 0.602
5 Netcetera Windows Server 2008 0:00:00 0.029 0.182 0.054 0.109 0.225
6 Hosting 4 Less Linux 0:00:00 0.029 0.227 0.079 0.160 0.359
7 Logicworks Linux 0:00:00 0.032 0.100 0.074 0.163 0.432
8 NaviSite Windows Server 2003 0:00:00 0.032 0.385 0.082 0.317 0.617
9 Catalyst2 Windows Server 2008 0:00:00 0.036 0.177 0.065 0.135 0.271
10 New York Internet FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.036 0.168 0.070 0.142 0.414

See full table

Codero was this month's most reliable hosting provider, and has been placed in the top 25 most reliable hosting companies for 10 of the last 12 months. Codero is a Kansas-based company which provides dedicated, managed and cloud servers, as well as eCommerce and small business hosting.

INetU took second place for the second consecutive month, having regularly appeared in the top 10 over the last year. The company offers managed and cloud hosting from its data centres in Pennsylvania, Virginia and the Netherlands.

The Spanish company DinaHosting took third place this month, with virtual, dedicated and cloud service offerings, as well as server colocation.

Half of this month's 10 most reliable hosting companies use Linux, with slightly less than half running Windows Server, and one provider using FreeBSD.

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. In the event the number of failed requests are equal then sites are ranked by average connection times.

Information on the measurement process and current measurements is available.