--- Job bc1 Start 08/25/08 02:03:41 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 --- bc1.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/bc1.gdx --- bc1.gms(148) 10 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.218 --- bc1.gms(123) 11 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- bc1.gms(124) 22 Mb --- 1,914 rows 1,752 columns 276,844 non-zeroes --- 252 discrete-columns --- bc1.gms(124) 22 Mb --- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.877 GAMS/CoinCbc 2.0 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 1751 columns and 1913 rows. 252 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 - 1.28 seconds 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 249 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions processed model has 1912 rows, 1750 columns (252 integer) and 264986 elements Pass 1: obj. 0.46311 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 1 ( 15) - solution found of 4.20681 Before mini branch and bound, 248 integers at bound fixed and 670 continuous Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 647 rows 643 columns Mini branch and bound improved solution from 4.20681 to 3.48382 (1.75 seconds) Freeing continuous variables gives a solution of 3.44084 Round again with cutoff of 3.31483 Pass 2: obj. 0.46311 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 1 ( 12) Pass 3: obj. 0.13210 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 3 ( 26) Pass 4: obj. 1.57313 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 7 ( 12) Pass 5: obj. 4.12428 --> up = 0 , down = 4 Pass 6: obj. 0.12601 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 1 ( 16) Pass 7: obj. 0.46311 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 1 ( 29) Pass 8: obj. 0.13210 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 3 ( 29) Pass 9: obj. 1.57313 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 7 ( 11) Pass 10: obj. 4.12428 --> up = 0 , down = 4 Pass 11: obj. 0.12601 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 2 ( 27) Pass 12: obj. 0.97900 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 3 ( 29) Pass 13: obj. 1.14066 --> up = 0 , down = 1 Pass 14: obj. 0.14338 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 3 ( 11) Pass 15: obj. 1.57313 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 7 ( 25) Pass 16: obj. 4.12428 --> up = 0 , down = 4 Pass 17: obj. 0.12601 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 2 ( 10) Pass 18: obj. 0.97900 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 3 ( 23) Pass 19: obj. 1.14066 --> up = 0 , down = 1 Pass 20: obj. 0.14338 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 3 ( 10) Pass 21: obj. 1.57313 --> No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 244 integers at bound fixed and 605 continuous Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 860 rows 850 columns Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (10.91 seconds) After 10.91 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 10.80 seconds Integer solution of 3.44084 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (11.00 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1223 rows 1148 columns - too large 9 added rows had average density of 420.667 At root node, 9 cuts changed objective from 2.18072 to 2.56756 in 3 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 3 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 4.084 seconds - new frequency is 2 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 4 row cuts (1 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 -0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 116 row cuts (8 active), 0 column cuts in 0.260 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.116 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.032 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 3.44084 best solution, best possible 2.56756 (19.46 seconds) Strong branching is fixing too many variables, too expensively! Integer solution of 3.43783 found after 9537 iterations and 80 nodes (138.31 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1269 rows 1191 columns - too large After 100 nodes, 13 on tree, 3.43783 best solution, best possible 2.59535 (157.88 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1292 rows 1214 columns - too large After 200 nodes, 31 on tree, 3.43184 best solution, best possible 2.59535 (244.09 seconds) After 300 nodes, 41 on tree, 3.43184 best solution, best possible 2.59535 (307.82 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1302 rows 1224 columns - too large Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1314 rows 1236 columns - too large Integer solution of 3.41167 found after 36009 iterations and 400 nodes (366.26 seconds) After 400 nodes, 35 on tree, 3.41167 best solution, best possible 2.59535 (366.26 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1314 rows 1236 columns - too large After 500 nodes, 67 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 2.79218 (445.24 seconds) After 600 nodes, 104 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 2.87011 (511.48 seconds) After 700 nodes, 127 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 2.8912 (547.72 seconds) After 800 nodes, 152 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 2.90333 (589.94 seconds) After 900 nodes, 171 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 2.93209 (636.09 seconds) After 1000 nodes, 180 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 2.96876 (668.01 seconds) After 1100 nodes, 187 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.00224 (701.98 seconds) After 1200 nodes, 198 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.03534 (738.31 seconds) After 1300 nodes, 217 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.07542 (764.83 seconds) After 1400 nodes, 231 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.09896 (795.15 seconds) After 1500 nodes, 242 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.10798 (821.11 seconds) After 1600 nodes, 258 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.12342 (849.68 seconds) After 1700 nodes, 280 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.13768 (875.08 seconds) After 1800 nodes, 290 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.15722 (904.24 seconds) After 1900 nodes, 294 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.17214 (931.99 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 307 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.18236 (956.84 seconds) After 2100 nodes, 316 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.19112 (982.72 seconds) After 2200 nodes, 326 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.19904 (1007.35 seconds) After 2300 nodes, 337 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.20571 (1030.33 seconds) After 2400 nodes, 345 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.21057 (1053.86 seconds) After 2500 nodes, 359 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.21563 (1077.71 seconds) After 2600 nodes, 365 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.22117 (1102.42 seconds) After 2700 nodes, 376 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.2274 (1128.17 seconds) After 2800 nodes, 384 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.23273 (1153.66 seconds) After 2900 nodes, 401 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.23696 (1180.19 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 414 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.24172 (1202.73 seconds) After 3100 nodes, 422 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.24591 (1225.68 seconds) After 3200 nodes, 430 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.24926 (1247.75 seconds) After 3300 nodes, 440 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.25346 (1270.35 seconds) After 3400 nodes, 453 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.2586 (1291.84 seconds) After 3500 nodes, 466 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.26338 (1315.73 seconds) After 3600 nodes, 470 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.26933 (1340.16 seconds) After 3700 nodes, 476 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.27492 (1362.65 seconds) After 3800 nodes, 479 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.27918 (1383.73 seconds) After 3900 nodes, 484 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.2826 (1405.85 seconds) After 4000 nodes, 483 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.28693 (1427.47 seconds) After 4100 nodes, 484 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.29023 (1449.13 seconds) After 4200 nodes, 489 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.29283 (1470.46 seconds) After 4300 nodes, 495 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.29437 (1493.13 seconds) After 4400 nodes, 506 on tree, 3.39461 best solution, best possible 3.29626 (1518.99 seconds) Integer solution of 3.38392 found after 284478 iterations and 4410 nodes (1521.60 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1331 rows 1253 columns - too large Integer solution of 3.36804 found after 284693 iterations and 4414 nodes (1523.82 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1337 rows 1259 columns - too large After 4500 nodes, 355 on tree, 3.36804 best solution, best possible 3.29866 (1542.46 seconds) Integer solution of 3.36652 found after 289972 iterations and 4513 nodes (1545.38 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1343 rows 1265 columns - too large After 4600 nodes, 343 on tree, 3.36652 best solution, best possible 3.3016 (1562.77 seconds) After 4700 nodes, 342 on tree, 3.36652 best solution, best possible 3.30468 (1583.14 seconds) Integer solution of 3.3663 found after 300218 iterations and 4710 nodes (1585.65 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1345 rows 1267 columns - too large After 4800 nodes, 339 on tree, 3.3663 best solution, best possible 3.30687 (1604.63 seconds) After 4900 nodes, 338 on tree, 3.3663 best solution, best possible 3.30919 (1623.74 seconds) Integer solution of 3.36492 found after 310790 iterations and 4909 nodes (1625.85 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1345 rows 1267 columns - too large After 5000 nodes, 328 on tree, 3.36492 best solution, best possible 3.31168 (1644.03 seconds) After 5100 nodes, 326 on tree, 3.36492 best solution, best possible 3.31322 (1661.90 seconds) Integer solution of 3.33836 found after 323840 iterations and 5148 nodes (1670.94 seconds) Full problem 1912 rows 1750 columns, reduced to 1352 rows 1274 columns - too large After 5200 nodes, 182 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.31469 (1680.55 seconds) After 5300 nodes, 176 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.31647 (1698.40 seconds) After 5400 nodes, 168 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.31867 (1716.12 seconds) After 5500 nodes, 163 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.31994 (1733.70 seconds) After 5600 nodes, 158 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.32148 (1751.69 seconds) After 5700 nodes, 149 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.32426 (1768.37 seconds) After 5800 nodes, 141 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.32601 (1784.82 seconds) Exiting on maximum time Partial search - best objective 3.33836 (best possible 3.32614), took 358217 iterations and 5813 nodes (1787.19 seconds) Strong branching done 3022 times (143598 iterations), fathomed 41 nodes and fixed 495 variables Maximum depth 89, 13808 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 2.18072 to 2.56756 Probing was tried 2068 times and created 1897 cuts of which 1779 were active after adding rounds of cuts (82.013 seconds) Gomory was tried 3 times and created 4 cuts of which 1 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 (-0.000 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 3416 times and created 2651 cuts of which 781 were active after adding rounds of cuts (120.504 seconds) FlowCover was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.116 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.032 seconds) Result - Stopped on time objective 3.338362547640875 after 5813 nodes and 358217 iterations - took 1800.36 seconds (total time 1801.75) Total time 1803.26 Time limit reached. Have feasible solution. Writing solution. Objective: 3.33836 Time: 1803.29 s --- Restarting execution --- bc1.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m *** Status: Normal completion --- Job bc1.gms Stop 08/25/08 02:37:38 elapsed 0:33:57.266