Allocations to priority peers result in inbalances

[hsanjuan]

The allocator has a very naïve approach when priority peers are specified: they are just sorted and put in front of the list.

That creates some effects. I.e. if a priority peer is in the US region and put first in the list, then the next peer in the list (not priority), may well also be in the same region.

Somehow there should be a more hollistic appraoch to priority allocations. Perhaps a priority allocation should be one with infinite weight but still subject to the rules of the balanced allocator.