On 13/8/21 12:18 am, Charlie Sale wrote: >>This sort is unlikely to optimal, but optimality would be much harder >>to achieve. > > Do you have anything in mind that would be more optimal? Should I take a > different strategy? > >> The ideal situation is to have 1 large download running to soak up > bandwidth > > Would it be better to search for any really large packages (much larger > than the rest), put those at the top of the > > list, and then leave everything else unsorted? Would that be too slow as > well?
I think aiming for optimal would require too much complexity in the ordering. I'm happy with a plain sort if it is an improvement. I'll run some with and without this patch and report back. I suggest others do too. Allan
