Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in October 2011

Rank Company site OS Outage
hh:mm:ss
Failed
Req%
DNS Connect First
byte
Total
1 Rackspace F5 BIG-IP 0.000 0.109 0.040 0.116 0.249
2 Kattare Internet Services Linux 0.000 0.174 0.124 0.250 0.449
3 Qube Managed Services Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.104 0.045 0.092 0.092
4 ReliableServers.com Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.097 0.047 0.097 0.133
5 www.micfo.com Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.316 0.083 0.361 0.581
6 New York Internet FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.007 0.133 0.044 0.089 0.248
7 Server Intellect Windows Server 2008 0:00:00 0.007 0.189 0.075 0.152 0.388
8 ServInt Linux 0:00:00 0.011 0.294 0.047 0.099 0.228
9 www.logicworks.net Linux 0:00:00 0.011 0.108 0.052 0.123 0.262
10 www.poundhost.com Linux 0:00:00 0.011 0.337 0.091 0.207 0.431

See full table

Rackspace had the most reliable hosting company site in October, responding to each and every one of Netcraft's requests throughout the month. Rackspace also had the most reliable site in April, despite failing to respond to two requests that month.

Rackspace provides managed and cloud hosting from nine datacentres in the US, UK and Hong Kong. The company is well known for the "Fanatical Support" it offers to its customers, including those who have chosen to move to other hosting companies. Rackspace serves its own website from an F5 BIG-IP device.

Kattare Internet Services also responded to all requests, but had a slower average connection time than Rackspace. Kattare's primary focus is on Java hosting – using Tomcat with private Java virtual machines – but also hosts PHP, Ruby, Perl and Python applications on shared hosting, managed servers and collocated machines in Corvallis, Oregon.

Seven of October's top ten hosting company websites used Linux, while the other three used FreeBSD, Windows Server 2008 and F5 BIG-IP.

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.