Hosting Providers sites
Ordered by OS
|Performance graph||Company site||OS||Outage hh:mm:ss||Failed Req%||DNS||Connect||First byte||Total||Kb/s||size(K)|
|6||www.cwcs.co.uk||CWCS Managed Hosting||Linux||0:00:00||0.303||0.232||0.120||0.222||1.067||43||36|
|10||www.nyi.net||New York Internet (NYI)||FreeBSD||0:00:00||0.038||0.143||0.076||0.153||0.576||123||52|
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Interpreting the Tables
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 individual web server, though it is possible to sort by other columns by clicking on the column heading.
Presently our performance collectors are located at London/DXI Networks, New York/New York Internet, San Jose/Datapipe, Italy/Aruba, Pennsylvania/INetU-2, Phoenix/GoDaddy, Vancouver/Peer1, Romania/Hostway, Zurich/vXtream, Amsterdam/Webair and Sao Paulo/ANEXIA. Sites located near one of our collectors may have an advantage over others listed in the table, though this effect is mitigated by using averages collected from multiple points. Sites exclusively hosted in the Far East are at a disadvantage as we do not currently have a performance collector in the region.
Sites using a Content Distribution Network, such as Akamai, have a particular advantage as the response to our request would come from the node closest to each performance collector.
More information can be found in the FAQ.