|2||XILO Communications Ltd.||Linux||0:00:00||0.008||0.206||0.064||0.127||0.127|
|10||Webair Internet Development||Linux||0:00:00||0.029||0.156||0.054||0.108||0.109|
May is the second month in a row that Datapipe has had the most reliable hosting company site. Its own site once again has lived up to its 100% Network Uptime Guarantee, as has been the case during over 10 years of monitoring by Netcraft. Datapipe has 25 data centres globally including locations in key technology and financial hubs: New York, Silicon Valley, London, and Hong Kong.
In second place in May was XILO Communications Ltd with just two failed requests. XILO’s website has maintained 100% uptime over the past two years, and 99.990% since October 2011. XILO offers services from shared hosting to dedicated servers and operate from the UK.
GoDaddy reached third place in May, marking its twelfth consecutive appearance in the top 10. Since May 2015, GoDaddy has had excellent connection times ranging from 5-16ms. GoDaddy recently enhanced its offering to small businesses by acquiring FreedomVoice, a cloud VOIP provider, with the aim of accelerating the delivery of communications services.
During May, Anexia ranked fourth in our top 10 and had just three failed requests. It was narrowly beaten by GoDaddy who had the same number of failed requests but a faster connection time. Anexia also placed impressively in the Inc. 5000 Europe, ranking as the 517th fastest growing company in Europe.
For the second time in 2016, all of the top 10 hosting company websites were powered by Linux. The last time a site using Windows appeared in the top 10 was June 2015
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.