|Rank||Performance Graph||OS||Outage hh:mm:ss||Failed Req%||DNS||Connect||First byte||Total|
|2||Hosting 4 Less||Linux||0:00:00||0.006||0.181||0.120||0.239||0.610|
|3||Qube Managed Services||Linux||0:00:00||0.009||0.128||0.064||0.129||0.129|
|7||XILO Communications Ltd.||Linux||0:00:00||0.015||0.238||0.093||0.193||0.348|
|9||Data Centers Canada||Linux||0:00:00||0.021||0.077||0.092||0.191||0.409|
Montreal based iWeb was the most reliable hosting company in October 2013 with only two failed requests. Two days ago the US IT-infrastructure company Internap announced plans to buy iWeb in a deal worth $145m. Both companies provide IaaS and are corporate sponsors of the OpenStack foundation. Internap has data centres around the world which will allow iWeb to expand on its four data centres, all based in Canada.
Hosting 4 Less was the second most reliable hosting company; it also only had two failed requests but its slower average connection time was used as the decider. 2nd place is its highest ranking this year, having also been ranked 2nd in September 2012. Qube Managed Services, who regularly feature in the top 10, ranked third this month having been the most reliable hosting company in September.
UK2 celebrated their 15th year in business this month and are again the fourth most reliable hosting company. UK2 cater to a wide range of customers, from individuals and small businesses wanting to create an online presence with their Website Builder tool to larger websites using its Xen based Virtual Servers and dedicated hosting.
Linux is used by eight of the top ten with the remaining two, Swishmail and Pair Networks using FreeBSD. Netcetera was the most reliable Windows hosting company again this month - although just outside the top 10 in 12th place. 8 of the top 10 are using the Apache web server including the top four companies.
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.
Your link here? Advertising on the Netcraft Blog