Comment 71 for bug 557429

Hi iMac. Thanks for sharing your use case.

I think this is a race condition that has only come to light recently because the startup and volume management has basically caused the number of things happening to remain consistent and small enough where the event-count gets incremented equally on both systems, and so you get this corrupted diverged volumes scenario. Its just as likely that you'd accidentally torch the changes that you want by writing from the older disk to the newer one as it is that you'd merge the two and hit this silent data loss.

I don't think offline replication between two separate machines is really what RAID1 is for, even if it did work at one time. The focus is on replicating data onto two disks, on a single system.

Still I think saving users from accidental data corruption is a useful feature, and should be specified and added *as a new feature*. Since the current documentation and implementation do not define any behavior for this diverged RAID1 scenario, it needs to be specified clearly, precisely what the expected behavior would be, and then implemented as such.