Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in May 2011

Rank Company site OS Outage
hh:mm:ss
Failed
Req%
DNS Connect First
byte
Total
1 Datapipe FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.004 0.053 0.006 0.013 0.016
2 www.serverbeach.com Linux 0:00:00 0.007 0.146 0.005 0.032 0.058
3 iWeb Technologies Linux 0:00:00 0.011 0.101 0.045 0.091 0.091
4 New York Internet FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.011 0.100 0.062 0.125 0.376
5 Swishmail FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.011 0.354 0.062 0.125 0.330
6 www.choopa.com FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.015 0.053 0.036 0.077 0.187
7 www.qubenet.net Linux 0:00:00 0.015 0.167 0.048 0.097 0.097
8 Kattare Internet Services Linux 0:00:00 0.015 0.151 0.097 0.196 0.394
9 www.uk2.net Linux 0:00:00 0.019 0.183 0.059 0.123 0.148
10 Rackspace F5 Big-IP 0:00:00 0.019 0.155 0.063 0.127 0.127

See full table

Datapipe was the most reliable hosting company in May 2011 with only a single failed request from Netcraft's performance monitors this month. Datapipe provides a range of managed services and colocation from data centres in New Jersey, California, London, Shanghai and Hong Kong. In May, Datapipe announced it had secured $176 million dollars in equity and finance to accelerate its expansion.

The second most reliable hosting company in May was www.serverbeach.com, which failed to respond to only two requests. ServerBeach offer cloud services, dedicated servers, managed hosting and colocation. As a child company of PEER 1 hosting, ServerBeach uses its parent company's IT infrastructure and network backbone.

Third this month was iWeb Technologies, a Canadian hosting company based in Montreal. iWeb Technologies provide web hosting, dedicated servers, managed hosting and colocation to customers from around the world.

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.