>> 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. > >> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
