[stunnel-users] New feature

[Michal Trojnara]

SqM wrote:

> I assume that in the case of "bad remote host" the client will select
> the next configured server..

If "bad remote host" means that connect() has failed - yes.

> That would actually be perfect for both simple load-sharing and a
> very simple solution to handle broken remote stunnel servers..

Right.  So you gain both: performance and reliability.

> For loadsharing it could be interesting to have the initially
> selected server in the list chosen randomly if possible..

You mean that each client makes its first connection to the same host, 
right?  You could randomize the order of "connect" options in configuration 
files distributed to clients.

Best regards,
    Mike