--- Job bc Start 08/25/08 01:29:19 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 --- bc.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/bc.gdx --- bc.gms(148) 10 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.230 --- bc.gms(123) 11 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- bc.gms(124) 22 Mb --- 1,914 rows 1,752 columns 276,844 non-zeroes --- 483 discrete-columns --- bc.gms(124) 22 Mb --- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.803 GAMS/CoinCbc 2.0 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 1751 columns and 1913 rows. 483 variables have integrality restrictions. Calling CBC main solution routine... Coin Cbc and Clp Solver version 2.00.00, build Mar 20 2008 command line - GAMS/CBC -solve -quit Continuous objective value is 0.782837 - 1.14 seconds 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 472 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions processed model has 1912 rows, 1750 columns (483 integer) and 264986 elements Objective coefficients multiple of 1 Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999 Pass 1: obj. 3.41502 --> up = 2 , down = 0 Pass 2: obj. 1.99294 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 11 ( 20) Pass 3: obj. -0.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 0 ( 16) - solution found of 14 Before mini branch and bound, 463 integers at bound fixed and 465 continuous Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 574 rows 574 columns Mini branch and bound improved solution from 14 to 7 (2.13 seconds) Round again with cutoff of 6.72687 Pass 4: obj. 3.41502 --> up = 2 , down = 0 Pass 5: obj. 1.99294 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 11 ( 20) Pass 6: obj. 7.27313 --> up = 0 , down = 8 Pass 7: obj. 1.21754 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 8 ( 28) Pass 8: obj. 5.27313 --> up = 0 , down = 5 Pass 9: obj. 1.36158 --> up = 0 , down = 1 Pass 10: obj. 0.71872 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 4 ( 26) Pass 11: obj. 3.27313 --> up = 0 , down = 4 perturbation applied Pass 12: obj. 78.27313 --> up = 0 , down = 80 Pass 13: obj. 1.73233 --> up = 1 , down = 0 Pass 14: obj. 1.03458 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 9 ( 13) Pass 15: obj. 6.73252 --> up = 0 , down = 4 Pass 16: obj. 2.98509 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 14 ( 20) Pass 17: obj. 5.73749 --> up = 0 , down = 3 Pass 18: obj. 2.73749 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 11 ( 22) Pass 19: obj. 6.27313 --> up = 0 , down = 8 Pass 20: obj. 2.03069 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 10 ( 18) Pass 21: obj. 6.27313 --> up = 0 , down = 8 Pass 22: obj. 1.43366 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 5 ( 28) Pass 23: obj. 3.27313 --> No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 428 integers at bound fixed and 428 continuous Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 802 rows 796 columns Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (11.59 seconds) After 11.59 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 11.47 seconds Integer solution of 7 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (11.63 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 243 rows 250 columns 30 added rows had average density of 388.1 At root node, 30 cuts changed objective from 4.26874 to 4.94242 in 3 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 12 row cuts (5 active), 0 column cuts in 4.360 seconds - new frequency is 2 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 14 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.092 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.012 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.004 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 419 row cuts (25 active), 0 column cuts in 0.936 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.164 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.048 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 4.94242 (22.79 seconds) Strong branching is fixing too many variables, too expensively! After 100 nodes, 15 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (257.39 seconds) After 200 nodes, 42 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (356.29 seconds) After 300 nodes, 43 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (418.31 seconds) After 400 nodes, 48 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (500.98 seconds) After 500 nodes, 41 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (609.28 seconds) After 600 nodes, 34 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (673.24 seconds) After 700 nodes, 45 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (727.58 seconds) After 800 nodes, 48 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (797.47 seconds) After 900 nodes, 38 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (874.47 seconds) After 1000 nodes, 29 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (913.46 seconds) After 1100 nodes, 32 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (967.32 seconds) After 1200 nodes, 19 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1035.85 seconds) After 1300 nodes, 19 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1082.34 seconds) After 1400 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1133.31 seconds) After 1500 nodes, 31 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1184.22 seconds) After 1600 nodes, 26 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1232.16 seconds) After 1700 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1279.76 seconds) After 1800 nodes, 25 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1329.27 seconds) After 1900 nodes, 24 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1373.08 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1417.52 seconds) After 2100 nodes, 17 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1459.31 seconds) After 2200 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1503.10 seconds) After 2300 nodes, 19 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1556.82 seconds) After 2400 nodes, 17 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1610.69 seconds) After 2500 nodes, 22 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1655.34 seconds) After 2600 nodes, 31 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1716.09 seconds) After 2700 nodes, 15 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03077 (1753.52 seconds) Exiting on maximum time Partial search - best objective 7 (best possible 5.03077), took 97530 iterations and 2722 nodes (1776.21 seconds) Strong branching done 11064 times (248762 iterations), fathomed 169 nodes and fixed 4127 variables Maximum depth 94, 24884 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 4.26874 to 4.94242 Probing was tried 776 times and created 2598 cuts of which 2334 were active after adding rounds of cuts (36.034 seconds) Gomory was tried 3 times and created 14 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.092 seconds) Knapsack was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.012 seconds) Clique was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.004 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 1572 times and created 2183 cuts of which 308 were active after adding rounds of cuts (55.427 seconds) FlowCover was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.164 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.048 seconds) Result - Stopped on time objective 7 after 2722 nodes and 97530 iterations - took 1800.35 seconds (total time 1801.59) Total time 1801.82 Time limit reached. Have feasible solution. Writing solution. Objective: 7 Time: 1801.85 s --- Restarting execution --- bc.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m *** Status: Normal completion --- Job bc.gms Stop 08/25/08 02:03:41 elapsed 0:34:21.508