|1||Qube Managed Services||Linux||0:00:00||0.003||0.082||0.051||0.104||0.104|
|3||New York Internet||FreeBSD||0:00:00||0.003||0.130||0.068||0.138||0.411|
|5||www.netcetera.co.uk||Windows Server 2008||0:00:00||0.007||0.033||0.065||0.132||0.264|
|9||INetU||Windows Server 2008||0:00:00||0.017||0.084||0.041||0.165||0.351|
The most reliable hosting company in December was Qube Managed Services, which responded to all but one of Netcraft's requests throughout the entire month. Qube offers managed hosting, cloud hosting and managed colocation for a range of customers, with a particular interest for those in the Finance and New Media sectors. The company was founded in London in 2001, where it now has two data centers. Customers can also make use of Qube's additional data centers in New York and Zurich.
Qube also performed well in the previous month, when it was the second most reliable hosting company.
Virtual Internet took second place, also with only one failed request, but with a longer connection time. The UK-based company provides a content distribution network (CDN) for the Monstermind game on Facebook, and also offers a range of private and public cloud hosting on both VMware and Xen hypervisors.
New York Internet was the third most reliable hosting company. NYI offers colocation, dedicated servers and virtual hosting from data centers in New York. The company focuses on reliability and technical support that is responsive round the clock.
Four of December's top ten most reliable hosting company sites used Linux, while three used FreeBSD, two used Windows Server 2008, and one used 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.