|1||Hosting 4 Less||Linux||0.000||0.194||0.112||0.228||0.574|
|2||Server Intellect||Windows Server 2008||0.000||0.252||0.115||0.233||0.519|
|8||www.netcetera.co.uk||Windows Server 2003||0:00:00||0.010||0.215||0.032||0.067||0.159|
|10||New York Internet||FreeBSD||0:00:00||0.010||0.261||0.072||0.149||0.362|
Server Intellect marks its second consecutive month as one of the most reliable hosting company sites, managing to respond to every request made by Netcraft’s globally distributed performance monitors. Their site is powered by ASP.NET and uses IIS 7.0 on Windows Server 2008. The company achieved Microsoft Security Solutions Competency earlier this year, which is their fourth competency within the Microsoft Gold Certified Partner Program.
Hosting 4 Less was the only other company to respond to all of Netcraft’s requests throughout September, earning it joint first place with Server Intellect. Hosting 4 Less partnered with buySAFE in June, enabling their customers to use buySAFE Bonding on their websites for free.
DataPipe was one of the most reliable hosting company sites in August, and only narrowly missed out on the same achievement in September. DataPipe has shown some good results over the past six months, notching up five top-ten appearances, including three first places.
Hosting 4 Less uses the Apache web server on Linux to run its main site. In total, three of September’s top ten hosting companies use Linux and another three use FreeBSD. Netcetera is still using Windows Server 2003, while green.ch uses an F5 BIG-IP device.
Netcraft measures and makes available the response times of fifty 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.
Further information on the measurement process and current measurements are available.