|1||Qube Managed Services||Linux||0:00:00||0.003||0.170||0.133||0.270||0.271|
|4||www.netcetera.co.uk||Windows Server 2008||0:00:00||0.007||0.045||0.139||0.281||0.701|
|5||XILO Communications Ltd.||Linux||0:00:00||0.007||0.376||0.141||0.406||0.687|
|7||New York Internet||FreeBSD||0:00:00||0.013||0.150||0.071||0.223||0.500|
|8||INetU||Windows Server 2008||0:00:00||0.013||0.105||0.093||0.271||0.549|
|9||Server Intellect||Windows Server 2008||0:00:00||0.017||0.149||0.055||0.111||0.278|
Qube Managed Services, a London-based company which specialises in virtual hosting, was the most reliable hosting company in August. With infrastructure in London, Zurich and New York, they provide Virtual Data Centres and Managed Hosting in addition to server co-location. Having placed in the top 10 twice before in the past six months, Qube’s top place this month is well-deserved with 99.997% of requests succeeding.
Datapipe and iWeb Technologies placed second and third this month with the same percentage of successful requests. Datapipe, whose connection times were on average faster, runs its data centres entirely on renewable energy and are recognised by the Environmental Protection Agency as a Green Power partner. iWeb offers dedicated and virtual servers in addition to a number of advanced solutions such as Web Clusters, ideal for customers requiring high availability.
As we’ve seen in previous months, the most reliable hosting companies are all powered by Linux, FreeBSD or Windows Server 2008. The last time a different operating system placed in the top 10 was when Windows Server 2003 appeared, back in February.
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.