Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in November 2010

Rank Company site OS Outage hh:mm:ss Failed Req% DNS Connect First byte Total
1 INetU FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.012 0.126 0.053 0.129 0.337
2 Rackspace F5 Big-IP 0:00:00 0.019 0.118 0.056 0.113 0.113
3 www.codero.com Linux 0:00:00 0.019 0.197 0.063 0.348 0.616
4 www.singlehop.com Linux 0:00:00 0.023 0.178 0.074 0.520 0.852
5 Virtual Internet Linux 0:00:00 0.027 0.207 0.048 0.099 0.099
6 Server Intellect Windows Server 2008 0:00:00 0.027 0.066 0.080 0.163 0.404
7 Multacom FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.027 0.141 0.105 0.217 0.595
8 www.netcetera.co.uk Windows Server 2008 0:00:00 0.031 0.105 0.045 0.094 0.190
9 Swishmail FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.031 0.102 0.051 0.102 0.268
10 ServInt Linux 0:00:00 0.035 0.208 0.062 0.129 0.321
See full table

INetU was this month's most reliable hoster, failing to respond to only three of Netcraft's requests. The hoster has a consistently good record, last month ranking third and regularly appearing in the top ten. INetU offers managed hosting services and prides itself on its high level of customer service.

Second place this month is Rackspace, which offers managed, cloud and application hosting from its nine datacentres in the U.S., the U.K. and Hong Kong. Rackspace offers "Fanatical Support" allowing customers to contact the company 24 hours a day.

Codero ranked third this month, with only five failed requests in November. Codero appeared in the top ten hosters in September and October but this is the first time it has been in the top three. The company offers dedicated and managed hosting aimed specifically at the needs of small businesses.

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.