With asynchronous replication, if a change is made to the data on Site A, that change will eventually make it to site B. I say "eventually" because, with asynchronous replication, the operating system and replication software do not wait for an acknowledgement from the remote site that the write has been performed.
Using the same example as above, if an application at Site A writes a block of data to a disk that is mirrored to Site B, then the I/O operation will complete as soon as the change is made to the disk at Site A. In a separate process, the replication software transfers the change to Site B and, eventually, the change is made at Site B.
If a failover occurs at a time when the data does not match due to a write delay, asynchronous replication can lead to an unsuccessful failover. Since the writes at the remote site are not synchronized with the writes at the local site, there is no way to know for sure that the data is consistent between both sites. In terms of a geographically dispersed clustering solution, there is no failover with asynchronous replication. Instead, users must bring a standby server online and mount the replicated data at the failover site.
The reason Exchange Server does not support asynchronous replication is because the replication software controls the write order and, therefore, the solution provider should support it. Moreover, with asynchronous replication, data corruption is likely to occur because Exchange has write-ordering dependency.
Inconsistent data between two sites using asynchronous replication is unavoidable. Because of this, Microsoft only supports Exchange Server in a synchronous replication scenario that uses hardware listed on the Geographically Dispersed Cluster Solution section of the Windows Server Catalog.