Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in October 2014
5th November, 2014
|2||XILO Communications Ltd.||Linux||0:00:00||0.022||0.210||0.065||0.131||0.227|
|5||Qube Managed Services||Linux||0:00:00||0.026||0.110||0.040||0.082||0.082|
ServerStack had the most reliable hosting company website in October with five failed requests. This is the eighth time this year that ServerStack has made it to the top 10 and the third time it has topped the table since we started monitoring it in 2012 — the last time ServerStack was at the top spot was back in June 2013. ServerStack is focussed on managed hosting and was co-founded by Moisey and Ben Uretsky who later went on to start cloud provider DigitalOcean.
XILO had the second most reliable company website with six failed requests. Krystal.co.uk and dinahosting.com also had the same number of failed requests, with the tie being broken by average connection time. This is the second time this year that British-based XILO has made it into the top 10. Its long-term uptime record backs up this recent strong performance — XILO has maintained 99.98% uptime over three years.
Krystal.co.uk had the third most reliable company website. Krystal provides modern, KVM-based virtualised Kloud servers from its data centre in an ex-military bunker outside London. This focus on security may be part of the reason why Krystal is trusted by Nike, The Financial Times, and The Telegraph to provide hosting services.
Linux remains the most common choice of operating system, being used by 8 of the top 10 hosting company websites. FreeBSD only had a single entrant, Datapipe, as did SmartOS with EveryCity.
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.