|1||Hyve Managed Hosting||Linux||0:00:00||0.000||0.083||0.0637||0.132||0.132|
|10||Qube Managed Services||Linux||0:00:00||0.009||0.133||0.063||0.125||0.125|
Hyve Managed Hosting had the most reliable hosting company site in June, successfully responding to all of Netcraft’s requests. This is Hyve’s fifth consecutive top ten placement, and marks the first time it has clinched the number-one spot. The company recently announced that it is now a part of the G-Cloud 9 framework agreement which simplifies cloud technology procurement for the UK public sector. As well having its primary data centre in the UK, Hyve also has data centres in New Jersey, San Jose, Hong Kong, and Shanghai.
Memset’s site came in second place in June, also with no failed requests, but with a marginally slower average connection time. The UK-based company has had an uptime of 99.998% over the last three years. Its customers have included British government agencies such as the Home Office, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and the Cabinet Office.
Netcetera’s site also successfully responded to all of Netcraft’s requests and took third place. This is the company’s fourth top ten placement in Netcraft’s rankings for 2017. Netcetera is based on the Isle of Man and provides data centre colocation, cloud hosting, dedicated servers and managed web hosting services.
Hivelocity came in fourth, also with no failed requests, but with a slightly slower average connection time than the companies in June 2017’s top three. This is the company’s second consecutive month with 100% response rate to Netcraft’s queries.
Netcraft measures and makes available the response times of around thirty 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.