|1||Qube Managed Services||Linux||0:00:00||0.000||0.100||0.039||0.081||0.081|
|3||Hosting 4 Less||Linux||0:00:00||0.017||0.174||0.125||0.248||0.634|
|5||XILO Communications Ltd.||Linux||0:00:00||0.021||0.199||0.069||0.166||0.261|
|7||Server Intellect||Windows Server 2012||0:00:00||0.021||0.075||0.101||0.638||0.998|
London-based Qube Managed Services had February's most reliable hosting company site, www.qubenet.co.uk, which successfully responded to all requests sent. This is the second time in six months Qube has had no failed requests, having also achieved it back in September. Qube's reliability is perhaps due to the routing infrastructure it has in place at its data centres in London, New York and Zurich. Qube's carriers include Level 3 Communications and Zayo (formerly AboveNet), both of which are known for their extensive network coverage across Europe and America.
In second place is ServerStack with two failed requests. ServerStack has maintained a 100% uptime record over the past year and offers a 100% uptime service-level agreement from its data centres in Amsterdam, New Jersey and San Jose. ServerStack uses the nginx web server to serve its website and also some of world's busiest websites, including a site which serves 150 million pageviews per day.
In third place with four failed requests is Hosting 4 Less. Hosting 4 Less has a 99.9% uptime guarantee and has been providing web hosting services for over 15 years. It owns and operates a Californian data centre facility which is privately peered via multiple gigabit connections to the Internet backbone.
FreeBSD powered the sites for both Datapipe (lowest connection time within the top 10) and Pair Networks. Windows Server 2012 powered Server Intellect and the remaining seven sites ran Linux, including first place Qube.
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