--- Job acc-tight-2 Start 07/17/08 09:54:54 GAMS Rev 227 Copyright (C) 1987-2008 GAMS Development. All rights reserved Licensee: Stefan Vigerske G071106/0001CB-LNX Humboldt University Berlin, Numerical Mathematics DC5918 --- Starting compilation --- acc-tight-2.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/acc-tight-2.gdx --- acc-tight-2.gms(148) 4 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.029 --- acc-tight-2.gms(123) 4 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- acc-tight-2.gms(124) 5 Mb --- 3,286 rows 1,621 columns 17,075 non-zeroes --- 1,620 discrete-columns --- acc-tight-2.gms(124) 5 Mb --- Executing Cbc: elapsed 0:00:00.092 GAMS/Cbc 2.1 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Reading parameter(s) from "/home/stefan/work/gams/benchmarks/LINLib.MIP/cbc.op2" >> threads 2 Finished reading from "/home/stefan/work/gams/benchmarks/LINLib.MIP/cbc.op2" Problem statistics: 1620 columns and 3285 rows. 1620 variables have integrality restrictions. Calling CBC main solution routine... Coin Cbc and Clp Solver version 2.10.00, build Jul 15 2008 command line - GAMS/CBC -threads 2 -solve -quit threads was changed from 0 to 2 Continuous objective value is 0 - 1.16 seconds 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 106 substitutions processed model has 3391 rows, 1620 columns (1620 integer) and 17285 elements Objective coefficients multiple of 1 Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999 Pass 1: (1.16 seconds) suminf. 89.32531 obj. 0 iterations 2731 Pass 2: (2.10 seconds) suminf. 72.82213 obj. 0 iterations 2134 Pass 3: (3.19 seconds) suminf. 62.01751 obj. 0 iterations 2436 Pass 4: (3.92 seconds) suminf. 50.59985 obj. 0.0361578 iterations 1663 Pass 5: (4.56 seconds) suminf. 48.24070 obj. 0 iterations 1402 Pass 6: (4.69 seconds) suminf. 48.20552 obj. 0 iterations 231 Pass 7: (4.82 seconds) suminf. 47.98228 obj. 0 iterations 234 Pass 8: (5.27 seconds) suminf. 47.39766 obj. 0 iterations 974 Pass 9: (5.70 seconds) suminf. 46.01808 obj. 0 iterations 956 Pass 10: (6.18 seconds) suminf. 46.73813 obj. 0 iterations 1076 Pass 11: (6.71 seconds) suminf. 46.02471 obj. 0 iterations 1168 Pass 12: (7.44 seconds) suminf. 46.24231 obj. 0 iterations 1696 Pass 13: (7.65 seconds) suminf. 46.10361 obj. 0 iterations 443 Pass 14: (8.02 seconds) suminf. 45.85065 obj. 0 iterations 833 Pass 15: (8.57 seconds) suminf. 46.93256 obj. 0 iterations 1242 Pass 16: (9.14 seconds) suminf. 46.00829 obj. 0 iterations 1234 Pass 17: (9.57 seconds) suminf. 46.39197 obj. 0 iterations 903 Pass 18: (10.00 seconds) suminf. 46.14629 obj. 0 iterations 953 Pass 19: (10.43 seconds) suminf. 45.92182 obj. 0 iterations 924 Pass 20: (10.74 seconds) suminf. 45.85065 obj. 0 iterations 638 No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 544 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 3391 rows 1620 columns, reduced to 2418 rows 1049 columns - too large Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (10.96 seconds) After 10.96 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 10.96 seconds 121 added rows had average density of 201.306 At root node, 121 cuts changed objective from 0 to 0 in 3 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 553 row cuts (105 active), 0 column cuts in 0.116 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 468 row cuts (16 active), 0 column cuts in 1.060 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.016 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.020 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.016 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.008 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.364 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (48.81 seconds) After 100 nodes, 49 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (308.62 seconds) After 200 nodes, 89 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (474.21 seconds) After 300 nodes, 91 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (524.60 seconds) After 400 nodes, 85 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (557.78 seconds) After 500 nodes, 93 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (586.39 seconds) After 600 nodes, 82 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (608.34 seconds) After 700 nodes, 88 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (630.93 seconds) After 800 nodes, 89 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (651.55 seconds) After 900 nodes, 95 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (685.63 seconds) After 1000 nodes, 101 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (723.56 seconds) After 1100 nodes, 107 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (761.60 seconds) After 1200 nodes, 104 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (805.73 seconds) After 1300 nodes, 103 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (856.68 seconds) After 1400 nodes, 98 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (906.12 seconds) After 1500 nodes, 97 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (951.88 seconds) After 1600 nodes, 100 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (994.63 seconds) After 1700 nodes, 99 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1040.99 seconds) After 1800 nodes, 97 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1085.52 seconds) After 1900 nodes, 102 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1127.69 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 101 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1168.82 seconds) After 2100 nodes, 101 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1210.28 seconds) After 2200 nodes, 111 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1235.61 seconds) After 2300 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1260.36 seconds) After 2400 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1283.82 seconds) After 2500 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1325.89 seconds) After 2600 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1363.31 seconds) After 2700 nodes, 100 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1396.99 seconds) After 2800 nodes, 109 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1430.21 seconds) After 2900 nodes, 109 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1456.26 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 115 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1480.84 seconds) After 3100 nodes, 118 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1506.07 seconds) After 3200 nodes, 105 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1533.25 seconds) After 3300 nodes, 120 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1565.22 seconds) After 3400 nodes, 114 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1600.02 seconds) After 3500 nodes, 116 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1636.61 seconds) After 3600 nodes, 107 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1674.21 seconds) After 3700 nodes, 107 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1715.30 seconds) After 3800 nodes, 111 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1742.23 seconds) After 3900 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1767.36 seconds) After 4000 nodes, 107 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1797.41 seconds) After 4100 nodes, 106 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1842.99 seconds) After 4200 nodes, 104 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1891.90 seconds) After 4300 nodes, 106 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1941.65 seconds) After 4400 nodes, 101 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1993.17 seconds) After 4500 nodes, 101 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2047.50 seconds) After 4600 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2091.31 seconds) After 4700 nodes, 116 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2122.37 seconds) After 4800 nodes, 109 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2163.03 seconds) After 4900 nodes, 127 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2205.85 seconds) After 5000 nodes, 122 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2241.58 seconds) After 5100 nodes, 120 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2283.84 seconds) After 5200 nodes, 117 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2324.02 seconds) After 5300 nodes, 121 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2363.68 seconds) After 5400 nodes, 116 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2408.25 seconds) After 5500 nodes, 117 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2448.49 seconds) After 5600 nodes, 109 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2499.86 seconds) After 5700 nodes, 107 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2557.56 seconds) After 5800 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2588.53 seconds) After 5900 nodes, 111 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2631.76 seconds) After 6000 nodes, 111 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2683.83 seconds) After 6100 nodes, 120 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2727.55 seconds) After 6200 nodes, 125 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2778.18 seconds) After 6300 nodes, 112 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2833.88 seconds) After 6400 nodes, 101 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2890.07 seconds) After 6500 nodes, 100 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2932.79 seconds) After 6600 nodes, 98 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (2989.55 seconds) After 6700 nodes, 93 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3006.38 seconds) After 6800 nodes, 99 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3037.86 seconds) After 6900 nodes, 100 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3086.78 seconds) After 7000 nodes, 97 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3138.78 seconds) After 7100 nodes, 94 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3196.56 seconds) After 7200 nodes, 109 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3251.69 seconds) After 7300 nodes, 110 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3304.26 seconds) After 7400 nodes, 109 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3359.73 seconds) After 7500 nodes, 111 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3415.95 seconds) After 7600 nodes, 116 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3470.18 seconds) After 7700 nodes, 119 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3525.17 seconds) After 7800 nodes, 126 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3582.04 seconds) After 7900 nodes, 116 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3654.85 seconds) After 8000 nodes, 112 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3712.84 seconds) After 8100 nodes, 119 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3764.15 seconds) After 8200 nodes, 115 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3813.57 seconds) After 8300 nodes, 124 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3865.50 seconds) After 8400 nodes, 118 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3914.50 seconds) After 8500 nodes, 119 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3958.81 seconds) After 8600 nodes, 118 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (3999.61 seconds) After 8700 nodes, 111 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4050.94 seconds) After 8800 nodes, 118 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4104.74 seconds) After 8900 nodes, 105 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4150.07 seconds) After 9000 nodes, 107 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4211.27 seconds) After 9100 nodes, 114 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4256.28 seconds) After 9200 nodes, 113 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4311.13 seconds) After 9300 nodes, 118 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4352.14 seconds) After 9400 nodes, 122 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4391.97 seconds) After 9500 nodes, 124 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4435.53 seconds) After 9600 nodes, 124 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4478.98 seconds) After 9700 nodes, 122 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4516.79 seconds) After 9800 nodes, 119 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4557.56 seconds) After 9900 nodes, 132 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4594.48 seconds) After 10000 nodes, 125 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4633.87 seconds) After 10100 nodes, 120 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4685.21 seconds) After 10200 nodes, 126 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4723.07 seconds) After 10300 nodes, 130 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4760.81 seconds) After 10400 nodes, 133 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4796.79 seconds) After 10500 nodes, 133 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4835.73 seconds) After 10600 nodes, 132 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4899.69 seconds) After 10700 nodes, 125 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4956.97 seconds) After 10800 nodes, 131 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (4999.41 seconds) After 10900 nodes, 129 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5033.97 seconds) After 11000 nodes, 130 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5089.13 seconds) After 11100 nodes, 221 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5202.66 seconds) After 11200 nodes, 270 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5240.43 seconds) After 11300 nodes, 309 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5305.79 seconds) After 11400 nodes, 329 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5368.92 seconds) After 11500 nodes, 395 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5444.48 seconds) After 11600 nodes, 458 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5523.05 seconds) After 11700 nodes, 474 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5588.05 seconds) After 11800 nodes, 534 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5657.29 seconds) After 11900 nodes, 594 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5743.53 seconds) After 12000 nodes, 653 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5839.96 seconds) After 12100 nodes, 688 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5897.72 seconds) After 12200 nodes, 727 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (5966.52 seconds) After 12300 nodes, 790 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6043.06 seconds) After 12400 nodes, 850 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6117.62 seconds) After 12500 nodes, 912 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6204.20 seconds) After 12600 nodes, 974 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6298.27 seconds) After 12700 nodes, 1036 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6371.59 seconds) After 12800 nodes, 1070 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6421.35 seconds) After 12900 nodes, 1121 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6484.31 seconds) After 13000 nodes, 1181 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6554.23 seconds) After 13100 nodes, 1242 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6623.48 seconds) After 13200 nodes, 1304 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6700.25 seconds) After 13300 nodes, 1363 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6769.64 seconds) After 13400 nodes, 1424 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6854.63 seconds) After 13500 nodes, 1485 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (6942.22 seconds) After 13600 nodes, 1546 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (7044.20 seconds) After 13700 nodes, 1606 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (7118.64 seconds) After 13800 nodes, 1658 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (7166.20 seconds) Thread 0 used 6932 times, waiting to start 1.83027, 40867 locks, 3.90184 locked, 0.0808202 waiting for locks Thread 1 used 6914 times, waiting to start 7.6765, 40854 locks, 4.10686 locked, 0.0747979 waiting for locks Main thread 3581.93 waiting for threads, 27847 locks, 0.0552568 locked, 0.0459794 waiting for locks Exiting on maximum time Partial search - best objective 1e+50 (best possible 0), took 8156903 iterations and 13845 nodes (7200.99 seconds) Strong branching done 6702 times (645209 iterations), fathomed 0 nodes and fixed 0 variables Maximum depth 65, 0 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 0 to 0 Probing was tried 1849 times and created 7754 cuts of which 4133 were active after adding rounds of cuts (9.897 seconds) Gomory was tried 1849 times and created 3327 cuts of which 203 were active after adding rounds of cuts (63.004 seconds) Knapsack was tried 9 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.048 seconds) Clique was tried 9 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.060 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 9 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.048 seconds) FlowCover was tried 9 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.024 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 9 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (1.092 seconds) Result - Stopped on time objective 1e+50 after 13845 nodes and 8156903 iterations - took 7201.28 seconds (total time 7202.45) Total time 7202.45 Time limit reached. No feasible solution found. wallclocktime: 3642.17 used seconds: 7202.46 Best possible: 0 --- Restarting execution --- acc-tight-2.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m *** Status: Normal completion --- Job acc-tight-2.gms Stop 07/17/08 10:55:36 elapsed 1:00:42.300