I'm sorry, but you have me somewhat confused. As far as I can tell, the original poster did not give "relatively hard facts to the contrary", since the nature of the "third party monitoring" is not understood. It occured to me that the bottleneck may have been taking place at the backbone level, rather than at the server itself. That is why I asked the original poster for more details.
My reasons for thinking this were twofold. Firstly, I have not experienced anywhere near the downtime that some others are reporting - nor have any of my clients (and our users) reported any downtime of significance. Secondly, there have been documented network infrastructure problems in the Los Angeles area recently.
Finally, the uptime stats on the control panel were useless. To my knowledge, the stats received little or no updating since I joined DreamHost in mid 2004. I would suggest that removing them, and replacing them with an offsite alternative, was a much better approach. The status page became invaluable during the LA power outage issues I mentioned in an earlier post.
In summary, I have no idea what the root cause of the mentioned downtime is, and I never claimed or argued to the contrary. I was merely postulating that the reasons for the downtime may not have been obvious as people thought.
Keystone Websites | si-blog