The most reliable hosting company in March was
dinahosting, which has been offering
hosting services since 2002. The company's data centre is spread across 25
buildings located in Madrid, Spain, which are physically protected by sluice
gates and biometric access controls.
Besides Spanish, dinahosting also provides support for customers who speak Catalan, Galician, English, and Portuguese.
To increase performance from other
countries, dinahosting also has additional DNS servers in London and Dallas.
dinahosting is currently offering 50% off its
cloud hosting service, which is managed by Xen hypervisor 4.0.0
running on Dell PowerEdge R410 servers. This platform supports
auto-scaling to dynamically allocate additional resources when
required, such as during traffic spikes. As with many other
cloud hosting services, CPU-hours and bandwidth are charged for
Virtual Internet took second
place, with only eight failed requests throughout March. The
UK-based company is scheduled to launch its flexible managed
hosting and cloud hosting solutions in the USA from 1st May
2011. Virtual Intenet's cloud hosting services are based on
VMWare, and include a 100% uptime guarantee, automatic crash
recovery, 1 gigabit networking and 20 day try-before-you-buy
offer. Other services offered by Virtual Internet include
colocation, global content delivery and business email hosting.
Six of the most reliable hosting company sites in March were
running on Linux, including each company within the top four. Of
the remaining companies, two used FreeBSD and one used F5
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.