quoted

Martin: I think one of your recent changes would have changed the member UUID
for some specific arrays because the one that was being created before wasn't
reliably stable.  Could  that apply to David's situation?

I am confused. AFAIL, my patch bedbf68a first introduced subarray UUIDs
for DDF. I don't understand how this mdadm.conf could have worked with
mdadm 3.2.x.

I'm not sure on the cisco server with lsi raid that the 3.2.x version
works as that is different than the isw issues that most were having.

But you are right, I had to make 7087f02b later that changed the way
subarray UUIDs were calculated. This would hurt people who created their
mdadm.conf file) with stock 3.3 and updated to latest git later.

quoted

David: if you remove the "UUID=" part for the array leaving the
"container=.... member=0" as the identification, does it work?

We sent them a version that will try that - hope they don't get too
tired of testing.  The int13h interface to the RAID works fine, as
does Windows interface.

I second that. David, please try it. I'd also appreciate "mdadm -E
/dev/sdX" output for all the RAID disks.

That version we sent should output this as well.

Martin