Hosting Providers sites ordered by failures 42 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 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.004  0.053 0.006 0.013 0.016 1101 5
2 unknown  0:00:00  0.007  0.146 0.005 0.032 0.058 748 46
3 Linux  0:00:00  0.011  0.101 0.045 0.091 0.091 - 0
4 unknown  0:00:00  0.011  0.100 0.062 0.125 0.376 95 22
5 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.011  0.354 0.062 0.125 0.330 85 17
6 Linux  0:00:00  0.015  0.053 0.036 0.077 0.187 55 12
7 Linux  0:00:00  0.015  0.167 0.048 0.097 0.097 - 0
8 Linux  0:00:00  0.015  0.151 0.097 0.196 0.394 56 12
9 F5 BIG-IP  0:00:00  0.019  0.155 0.063 0.127 0.127 - 0
10 Windows Server 2012  0:00:00  0.026  0.016 0.061 0.124 0.250 98 16
11 Linux  0:00:00  0.026  0.162 0.065 0.134 0.314 50 9
12 Linux  0:00:00  0.026  0.102 0.070 0.155 0.363 219 32
13 Windows Server 2003  0:00:00  0.026  0.180 0.084 0.171 0.482 100 42
14 FreeBSD  0:00:00  0.030  0.161 0.073 0.144 0.415 74 20
15 unknown  0:00:00  0.037  0.070 0.005 0.014 0.043 878 62
16 unknown  0:00:00  0.049  0.122 0.048 0.309 0.516 169 47
17 Windows Server 2003  0:00:00  0.056  0.051 0.040 0.139 0.282 95 16
18 Linux  0:00:00  0.075  0.106 0.063 0.255 0.441 110 26
19 Linux  0:07:38  0.086  0.113 0.091 0.182 0.182 - 0
20 Linux  0:08:33  0.142  0.175 0.077 0.195 0.848 327 269
21 Linux  0:09:56  0.183  0.198 0.093 0.189 0.505 89 32
22 unknown  0:48:30  0.317  0.153 0.060 0.120 0.120 - 0
23 Linux  0:59:21  0.403  0.308 0.078 1.086 1.407 144 41
24 Linux  0:00:00  0.526  0.148 0.091 0.183 0.535 56 16
 

Report from 1-May-2011 00:00 till 31-May-2011 23:59

Generated on 26-Oct-2014 04:22

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, Virginia/Rackspace, San Jose/Datapipe, Italy/Aruba, Pennsylvania/INetU-2, Phoenix/GoDaddy, Vancouver/Peer1 and Romania/Hostway. 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.