Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in December 2015

Rank Performance Graph OS Outage
hh:mm:ss
Failed
Req%
DNS Connect First
byte
Total
1 EveryCity SmartOS 0:00:00 0.000 0.093 0.064 0.128 0.128
2 Lightcrest unknown 0:00:00 0.004 0.276 0.006 0.023 0.027
3 One.com Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.203 0.037 0.105 0.105
4 Memset Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.153 0.064 0.157 0.245
5 ServerStack Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.125 0.067 0.135 0.135
6 Netcetera Linux 0:00:00 0.004 0.075 0.084 0.171 0.171
7 Codero Citrix Netscaler 0:00:00 0.004 0.177 0.092 0.189 0.381
8 GoDaddy.com Inc Linux 0:00:00 0.008 0.264 0.007 0.018 0.018
9 Datapipe Linux 0:00:00 0.008 0.145 0.012 0.024 0.031
10 Swishmail FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.008 0.144 0.062 0.125 0.168

See full table

EveryCity had the most reliable hosting company site in December 2015. Despite moving into new offices, its website was the only one to respond to all of Netcraft's requests. EveryCity has maintained its 100% uptime record throughout 2015, and has made it into the top ten 11 times during the year. It also had the most reliable hosting company site in May.

In second place in December was Lightcrest, which also appeared in the top ten in November. It experienced only one failed request, with an impressively fast average connection time of 6 milliseconds. Lightcrest operates its cloud services using its own Kahu Compute Fabric infrastructure, without outsourcing any components to third-party cloud providers.

In third place – also with a single failed request, but with a slower average connection time – was One.com. Established in 2002, One.com now has over 270 employees with companies registered in Denmark, India and Dubai.

Six of December's top ten hosting company sites ran on Linux operating systems, while Swishmail used FreeBSD, Codero used a Citrix Netscaler device, and EveryCity used SmartOS. The latter is a community fork of OpenSolaris, featuring the ZFS file system, DTrace dynamic tracing, kernel-based virtual machines and Solaris Zones operating system-level virtualisation.

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.