Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in March 2012

Rank Company site OS Outage
hh:mm:ss
Failed
Req%
DNS Connect First
byte
Total
1 ReliableServers.com Linux 0:00:00 0.003 0.170 0.072 0.149 0.177
2 www.codero.com Linux 0:00:00 0.007 0.184 0.057 0.342 0.572
3 www.choopa.com Linux 0:00:00 0.010 0.100 0.038 0.081 0.094
4 New York Internet FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.010 0.105 0.069 0.140 0.365
5 Swishmail FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.010 0.130 0.069 0.139 0.308
6 INetU Windows Server 2008 0:00:00 0.010 0.105 0.074 0.238 0.462
7 Server Intellect Windows Server 2008 0:00:00 0.010 0.106 0.095 0.209 0.494
8 Multacom FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.013 0.152 0.102 0.215 0.424
9 iWeb Technologies Linux 0:00:00 0.017 0.068 0.048 0.096 0.096
10 www.micfo.com Linux 0:00:00 0.020 1.277 0.078 0.287 0.366

See full table

Aptly named ReliableServers.com was the most reliable hosting company site in March, responding to all but one of Netcraft's requests throughout the month. The company's servers are located in seismically sound data centers in Newark and North Bergen, New Jersey, with 24/7 on-site support staff and diesel generators. Connectivity is provided by multiple fiber routes from Nlayer, Tiscali, Tinet, Level3, and extensive private peering in the NY Metro area.

In second place, with only two failed requests, was last month's winner Codero. Their dedicated servers include a 100% uptime guarantee and are hosted in Codero's own data centers in Phoenix, Arizona, Chicago and Illinois.

Linux was used by five of the most reliable hosting company sites in March, including both ReliableServers.com and Codero. Three used FreeBSD, while the remaining two were running Windows Server 2008.

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.