Latest Performance News

Netcraft Hosting Provider Performance Monitoring

Netcraft measures and makes available the response times of 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.

Hosting Providers sites ordered by failures over the last 1 day, updated every 15 mins. 39 sites
Click on a column heading to sort by that column, click twice to reverse order.
Click the site name to see graphs of site performance.
FAQ
Rank Performance graph Company site OS Outage hh:mm:ss Failed Req% DNS Connect First byte Total Kb/s size(K)
1 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.249 0.005 0.206 0.400 230 45
2 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.086 0.007 0.156 0.156 - 0
3 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.143 0.011 1.057 1.169 785 87
4 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.092 0.013 0.027 0.037 886 9
5 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.096 0.015 0.165 0.352 103 19
6 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.063 0.018 0.164 0.165 27542 1
7 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.000  0.177 0.025 0.052 0.150 587 57
8 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.090 0.044 0.089 0.089 - 0
9 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.108 0.053 0.209 0.209 - 0
10 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.179 0.062 0.135 0.135 - 0
11 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.089 0.063 0.127 0.127 - 0
12 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.106 0.064 0.150 0.330 332 60
13 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.201 0.065 0.130 0.132 1887 3
14 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.295 0.066 0.135 0.135 - 0
15 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.310 0.067 0.133 0.133 - 0
16 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.111 0.067 0.158 0.279 307 37
17 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.077 0.068 0.137 0.137 - 0
18 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.000  0.206 0.069 0.163 0.576 82 34
19 Windows Server 2008  0:00:00  0.000  0.116 0.069 0.189 0.392 151 31
20 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.126 0.069 0.155 0.155 - 0
21 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.000  0.101 0.070 0.146 0.178 517 17
22 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.119 0.070 0.140 0.140 - 0
23 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.194 0.073 0.144 0.144 - 0
24 Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.000  0.059 0.085 0.166 0.166 - 0
25 Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.000  0.147 0.085 0.175 0.175 - -
26 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.425 0.090 0.188 0.188 - 0
27 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.157 0.092 0.189 0.382 202 39
28 unknown  0:00:00  0.000  0.121 0.094 0.185 0.185 - -
29 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.154 0.101 0.205 0.316 147 16
30 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.175 0.117 0.265 0.581 80 25
31 Linux  0:00:00  0.000  0.190 0.156 0.235 0.235 - -
32 Linux  0:00:00  0.778  0.114 0.061 0.124 0.124 - 0
33 Linux  0:00:00  0.782  0.155 0.014 0.470 0.504 1196 41
34 Linux  0:00:00  0.908  0.133 0.083 0.167 0.167 - 0
35 Linux  0:00:00  1.556  0.217 0.025 0.052 0.052 - 0
36 F5 BIG-IP  0:00:00  2.065  0.114 0.077 0.143 0.162 250 5
37 Linux  0:00:00  3.053  0.264 0.082 0.398 0.722 163 53
38 Linux  0:00:00  5.243  0.237 0.102 0.372 0.683 332 103
39 Linux  0:45:00  6.353  0.055 0.063 0.522 1.314 84 67
 

Report from 17-Apr-2015 19:20 till 18-Apr-2015 19:14

Generated on 18-Apr-2015 19:21

Note: Outage times display the minimum outage time which may understate each outage by up to 15 minutes, which is the sampling frequency.

If you are researching prospective hosting locations, or performing competitor analysis and would like to buy bespoke performance monitoring of sites of your choice, or access to historical data, please mail us at sales@netcraft.com

Interpreting the Tables

Using the performance of a hosting provider's own site to determine the performance of the hosting companies network, is only indicative. By default the sites are ranked in order of failed requests and time to connect, shortest first, in order to give the clearest indication of network capacity and congestion, with the least impact from the performance of the companies' own web servers, though it is possible to sort by any column by clicking on the column heading.

Presently our performance collectors are located at London/DXI Networks, New York/New York Internet, Pennsylvania/INetU-2, San Jose/Datapipe, Phoenix/GoDaddy, Italy/Aruba, Zurich/Qube and Amsterdam/Webair. These companies have an advantage over the other companies listed in the table, as each of them have a collector in their own datacenter. Companies in the Far East are at a disadvantage as we do not currently have a performance collector in the region.

Companies using a caching system such as Akamai would have a particular advantage as the response to our request would come from the Akamai server closest to each performance collector.

If you are using the table as a guide when choosing where to locate a dedicated or collocated server, remember that connection times fluctuate continually, and only hundredths of a second separate the top companies. Avoiding companies showing prolonged outages is likely to be a better strategy than necessarily going for the company with the fastest connection time.

Other factors including availability and quality of support, and price will also be important. If you are considering shared hosting then the load on the shared hosting system will likely be a greater constraint on the performance of your site than network connection time.

More information can be found in the FAQ.