--- Job irp Start 08/21/08 07:59:12 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 --- irp.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/irp.gdx --- irp.gms(148) 7 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.164 --- irp.gms(123) 7 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- irp.gms(124) 13 Mb --- 40 rows 20,316 columns 118,570 non-zeroes --- 20,315 discrete-columns --- irp.gms(124) 13 Mb --- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.466 GAMS/CoinCbc 2.0 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 20315 columns and 39 rows. 20315 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 12123.5 - 0.12 seconds 0 fixed, 833 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions processed model has 39 rows, 19370 columns (19370 integer) and 93161 elements Pass 1: obj. 4.45556 --> up = 1 , down = 0 Pass 2: obj. 3.50000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 11 ( 11) Pass 3: obj. 8.50000 --> up = 0 , down = 11 perturbation applied Pass 4: obj. 363.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 366 Pass 5: obj. 2.20000 --> up = 1 , down = 0 Pass 6: obj. 1.60000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 7 ( 14) Pass 7: obj. 5.40000 --> up = 1 , down = 6 perturbation applied Pass 8: obj. 334.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 338 Pass 9: obj. 3.60000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 14 ( 14) Pass 10: obj. 10.53333 --> up = 0 , down = 13 Pass 11: obj. 2.60000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 12 ( 28) Pass 12: obj. 9.40000 --> up = 0 , down = 12 perturbation applied Pass 13: obj. 369.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 373 perturbation applied Pass 14: obj. 353.81227 --> up = 0 , down = 356 Pass 15: obj. 2.47619 --> up = 1 , down = 0 Pass 16: obj. 1.64865 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 13 ( 29) Pass 17: obj. 11.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 11 Pass 18: obj. 3.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 6 ( 23) Pass 19: obj. 3.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 6 perturbation applied Pass 20: obj. 366.72115 --> No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 19190 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 39 rows 19370 columns, reduced to 37 rows 180 columns Mini branch and bound improved solution from 1.79769e+308 to 12917.5 (1.49 seconds) Round again with cutoff of 12838.1 Pass 20: obj. 4.62500 --> up = 2 , down = 0 Pass 21: obj. 4.62500 --> up = 0 , down = 1 Pass 22: obj. 4.16667 --> up = 0 , down = 1 Pass 23: obj. 3.33333 --> up = 1 , down = 0 Pass 24: obj. 2.33333 --> up = 1 , down = 0 Pass 25: obj. 1.33333 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 6 ( 10) Pass 26: obj. 4.66667 --> up = 1 , down = 5 perturbation applied Pass 27: obj. 365.45455 --> up = 0 , down = 367 Pass 28: obj. 2.25000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 11 ( 14) Pass 29: obj. 8.75000 --> up = 1 , down = 10 perturbation applied Pass 30: obj. 335.25000 --> up = 0 , down = 337 Pass 31: obj. 1.20000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 6 ( 19) Pass 32: obj. 4.80000 --> up = 0 , down = 6 perturbation applied Pass 33: obj. 361.05405 --> up = 0 , down = 363 Pass 34: obj. 2.00000 --> up = 4 , down = 0 Pass 35: obj. 2.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 1 Pass 36: obj. 2.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 1 Pass 37: obj. 2.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 4 ( 17) Pass 38: obj. 2.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 4 ( 18) perturbation applied Pass 39: obj. 359.13084 --> No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 19239 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 39 rows 19370 columns, reduced to 36 rows 130 columns Mini branch and bound improved solution from 12917.5 to 12574 (2.67 seconds) After 2.68 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 2.64 seconds Full problem 39 rows 19370 columns, reduced to 18 rows 2263 columns Integer solution of 12162.4 found by greedy equality after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (3.05 seconds) 46 added rows had average density of 50.6087 At root node, 46 cuts changed objective from 12123.5 to 12132.7 in 20 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 10 row cuts (5 active), 0 column cuts in 0.484 seconds - new frequency is 4 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 6 row cuts (2 active), 0 column cuts in 0.216 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.060 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 1343 row cuts (39 active), 0 column cuts in 0.032 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.004 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.004 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.020 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 12162.4 best solution, best possible 12132.7 (8.48 seconds) Strong branching is fixing too many variables, too expensively! After 100 nodes, 18 on tree, 12161.6 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (33.56 seconds) After 200 nodes, 30 on tree, 12161.6 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (45.26 seconds) After 300 nodes, 44 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (54.86 seconds) After 400 nodes, 66 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (64.49 seconds) After 500 nodes, 80 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (71.30 seconds) After 600 nodes, 91 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (77.19 seconds) After 700 nodes, 96 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (82.75 seconds) After 800 nodes, 113 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (91.13 seconds) After 900 nodes, 124 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (98.98 seconds) After 1000 nodes, 133 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (102.92 seconds) After 1100 nodes, 141 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (106.59 seconds) After 1200 nodes, 146 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (113.75 seconds) After 1300 nodes, 156 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (119.62 seconds) After 1400 nodes, 164 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (123.25 seconds) After 1500 nodes, 168 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (125.02 seconds) After 1600 nodes, 170 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (126.39 seconds) After 1700 nodes, 164 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (129.40 seconds) After 1800 nodes, 166 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (133.26 seconds) After 1900 nodes, 171 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (136.26 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 166 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (139.91 seconds) After 2100 nodes, 160 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (142.84 seconds) After 2200 nodes, 163 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (147.14 seconds) After 2300 nodes, 171 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (151.03 seconds) After 2400 nodes, 184 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (156.69 seconds) After 2500 nodes, 189 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (158.92 seconds) After 2600 nodes, 199 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (162.05 seconds) After 2700 nodes, 205 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (164.59 seconds) After 2800 nodes, 208 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (166.43 seconds) After 2900 nodes, 209 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (168.15 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 215 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (171.29 seconds) After 3100 nodes, 221 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (173.38 seconds) After 3200 nodes, 226 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (176.28 seconds) After 3300 nodes, 220 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (177.73 seconds) After 3400 nodes, 222 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (179.64 seconds) After 3500 nodes, 226 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (182.06 seconds) After 3600 nodes, 227 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (185.02 seconds) After 3700 nodes, 225 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (187.67 seconds) After 3800 nodes, 227 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (190.30 seconds) After 3900 nodes, 238 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (192.41 seconds) After 4000 nodes, 245 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (193.92 seconds) After 4100 nodes, 242 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (195.02 seconds) After 4200 nodes, 245 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (196.73 seconds) After 4300 nodes, 254 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (199.11 seconds) After 4400 nodes, 257 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12133.3 (201.42 seconds) After 4500 nodes, 244 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12146.6 (203.77 seconds) After 4600 nodes, 236 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12147.1 (205.69 seconds) After 4700 nodes, 230 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12147.2 (207.24 seconds) After 4800 nodes, 233 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12147.2 (210.08 seconds) After 4900 nodes, 219 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12147.2 (211.18 seconds) After 5000 nodes, 216 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12147.2 (212.88 seconds) After 5100 nodes, 209 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12147.2 (214.52 seconds) After 5200 nodes, 210 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12148.4 (216.25 seconds) After 5300 nodes, 209 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12148.4 (217.96 seconds) After 5400 nodes, 211 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12148.4 (219.68 seconds) After 5500 nodes, 208 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12148.4 (221.30 seconds) After 5600 nodes, 201 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12148.4 (223.32 seconds) After 5700 nodes, 194 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12148.4 (224.65 seconds) After 5800 nodes, 190 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12148.4 (226.27 seconds) After 5900 nodes, 185 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12148.4 (227.73 seconds) After 6000 nodes, 179 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12149.1 (229.52 seconds) After 6100 nodes, 162 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12149.1 (230.42 seconds) After 6200 nodes, 160 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12149.1 (231.84 seconds) After 6300 nodes, 149 on tree, 12161 best solution, best possible 12149.1 (232.83 seconds) Integer solution of 12160.2 found after 84479 iterations and 6315 nodes (233.09 seconds) Full problem 39 rows 19370 columns, reduced to 0 rows 0 columns Integer solution of 12159.5 found by combine solutions after 84482 iterations and 6316 nodes (233.23 seconds) After 6400 nodes, 111 on tree, 12159.5 best solution, best possible 12150.1 (234.62 seconds) After 6500 nodes, 97 on tree, 12159.5 best solution, best possible 12150.1 (236.03 seconds) After 6600 nodes, 80 on tree, 12159.5 best solution, best possible 12150.1 (236.88 seconds) After 6700 nodes, 67 on tree, 12159.5 best solution, best possible 12152.1 (238.31 seconds) After 6800 nodes, 49 on tree, 12159.5 best solution, best possible 12152.5 (239.51 seconds) After 6900 nodes, 37 on tree, 12159.5 best solution, best possible 12153.2 (240.71 seconds) After 7000 nodes, 19 on tree, 12159.5 best solution, best possible 12156.1 (241.72 seconds) Search completed - best objective 12159.492836, took 89712 iterations and 7054 nodes (242.15 seconds) Strong branching done 37750 times (687427 iterations), fathomed 523 nodes and fixed 12046 variables Maximum depth 137, 987755 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 12123.5 to 12132.7 Probing was tried 1045 times and created 53 cuts of which 56 were active after adding rounds of cuts (13.393 seconds) Gomory was tried 20 times and created 6 cuts of which 2 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.216 seconds) Knapsack was tried 20 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.060 seconds) Clique was tried 922 times and created 25890 cuts of which 2701 were active after adding rounds of cuts (1.784 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.004 seconds) FlowCover was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.004 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.020 seconds) Result - Finished objective 12159.492836 after 7054 nodes and 89712 iterations - took 243.85 seconds (total time 243.98) Total time 244.05 Solved to optimality. Writing solution. Objective: 12159.5 Time: 244.07 s --- Restarting execution --- irp.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m --- irp.gms(124) 8 Mb *** Status: Normal completion --- Job irp.gms Stop 08/21/08 08:03:25 elapsed 0:04:13.139