|1||Netcetera||Windows Server 2012||0:00:00||0.004||0.061||0.082||0.162||0.162|
|2||Qube Managed Services||Linux||0:00:00||0.015||0.100||0.037||0.076||0.076|
|3||XILO Communications Ltd.||Linux||0:00:00||0.022||0.205||0.065||0.130||0.130|
|6||INetU||Windows Server 2008||0:00:00||0.037||0.126||0.076||0.205||0.436|
|8||New York Internet||FreeBSD||0:00:00||0.045||0.220||0.036||0.075||0.200|
Netcetera had the most reliable hosting company site in January, with only a single failed request. Netcetera offers an SLA-backed 99.9% uptime guarantee on its services, and exceeds this promise on its own site, with an uptime of 99.97% over the previous year and 99.96% over ten years. The company offers dedicated, managed and colocation solutions based out of a data centre in the Isle of Man. Amongst other features, the data centre is carbon neutral, achieved via a combination of carbon offsetting and energy-saving technologies.
Qube Managed Services placed second in January, carrying over its excellent performance from 2014 where it placed in the top ten on eleven occasions, coming first four times. London-based Qube offers managed services out of data centres in London, New York and Zurich.
In third place, with 100% uptime and six failed requests, is XILO Communications. XILO offers services from shared hosting to dedicated servers out of its Maidenhead data centre in the south of England, as well as a corporate broadband service.
Linux remains a popular choice in terms of operating system, with six hosting companies sites served from Linux machines; Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2008, SmartOS, and FreeBSD each make a single appearance.
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.