|1||New York Internet (NYI)||FreeBSD||0:00:00||0.000||0.554||0.061||0.121||0.122|
|3||CWCS Managed Hosting||Linux||0:00:00||0.000||0.247||0.066||0.132||0.132|
|10||Hyve Managed Hosting||Linux||0:00:00||0.007||0.138||0.073||0.145||0.145|
In September 2021, New York Internet (NYI) had the most reliable hosting company site: it responded to all of Netcraft’s requests, with an average connection time of 61ms. NYI has appeared in the top 10 table seven times in 2021 so far. Customers can choose from a range of cloud, colocation, bare metal and managed solutions.
Bigstep, CWCS Managed Hosting and Dinahosting appear in second, third and fourth places. Bigstep came close to NYI in average connection time, averaging 63ms. CWCS and Dinahosting both followed, averaging 66ms and 73ms respectively.
Bigstep’s bare metal cloud hosting provides the flexibility of cloud hosting without the associated overhead and performance reductions of virtualization. The bare metal offerings are available in data centres in the UK and Romania.
CWCS provides dedicated servers along with cloud services, as well as domain registration and VPS hosting. CWCS has data centres across the UK, as well as North America.
Dinahosting provides cloud hosting and domain registration services, with data centres located at Interxion and Global Switch, in Madrid.
The top hosting company in September used FreeBSD, whilst the rest of the top 10 used Linux. This marks the first time in 2021 that a non-Linux provider has been the most reliable host, but Linux remains clearly dominant in the top 10 throughout this year.
Netcraft measures and makes available the response times of around twenty 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.