--- Job neos1 Start 08/21/08 09:36:29 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 --- neos1.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/neos1.gdx --- neos1.gms(148) 4 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.056 --- neos1.gms(123) 4 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- neos1.gms(124) 6 Mb --- 5,021 rows 2,113 columns 21,601 non-zeroes --- 2,112 discrete-columns --- neos1.gms(124) 6 Mb --- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.142 GAMS/CoinCbc 2.0 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 2112 columns and 5020 rows. 2112 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 5.6 - 0.04 seconds processed model has 1018 rows, 1728 columns (1728 integer) and 8208 elements Objective coefficients multiple of 1 Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999 Pass 1: obj. 5.60000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 18 ( 18) Pass 2: obj. 2.40000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 12 ( 28) Pass 3: obj. 0.80000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 4 ( 12) Pass 4: obj. 0.80000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 4 ( 22) perturbation applied Pass 5: obj. 192.20833 --> up = 2 , down = 201 Pass 6: obj. 19.68333 --> up = 7 , down = 6 Pass 7: obj. 9.93333 --> up = 2 , down = 1 Pass 8: obj. 7.86667 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 29 ( 29) Pass 9: obj. 6.40000 --> up = 0 , down = 6 Pass 10: obj. 2.80000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 14 ( 17) Pass 11: obj. 1.60000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 8 ( 17) Pass 12: obj. 1.60000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 8 ( 20) perturbation applied Pass 13: obj. 187.46667 --> up = 5 , down = 197 Pass 14: obj. 10.06667 --> up = 3 , down = 1 Pass 15: obj. 6.80000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 28 ( 28) Pass 16: obj. 3.40000 --> up = 0 , down = 2 Pass 17: obj. 2.20000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 11 ( 21) Pass 18: obj. 2.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 8 ( 21) Pass 19: obj. 1.60000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 8 ( 16) perturbation applied Pass 20: obj. 213.31667 --> No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 1270 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 1018 rows 1728 columns, reduced to 425 rows 393 columns Mini branch and bound improved solution from 1.79769e+308 to 24 (0.60 seconds) Round again with cutoff of 22.16 Pass 20: obj. 5.60000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 20 ( 20) Pass 21: obj. 2.00000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 10 ( 18) Pass 22: obj. 4.64000 --> up = 0 , down = 5 Pass 23: obj. 1.80000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 9 ( 29) Pass 24: obj. 4.64000 --> up = 0 , down = 5 Pass 25: obj. 1.80000 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 9 ( 25) perturbation applied Pass 26: obj. 236.57333 --> up = 3 , down = 248 Pass 27: obj. 12.73333 --> up = 2 , down = 0 Pass 28: obj. 10.73333 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 25 ( 25) Pass 29: obj. 17.17333 --> up = 1 , down = 15 Pass 30: obj. 8.10667 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 14 ( 14) Pass 31: obj. 14.77333 --> up = 1 , down = 11 Pass 32: obj. 8.10667 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 16 ( 16) Pass 33: obj. 15.97333 --> up = 1 , down = 13 Pass 34: obj. 8.10667 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 22 ( 22) Pass 35: obj. 19.57333 --> up = 1 , down = 19 Pass 36: obj. 8.10667 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 27 ( 27) Pass 37: obj. 22.57333 --> up = 1 , down = 24 Pass 38: obj. 8.10667 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 21 ( 21) Pass 39: obj. 18.97333 --> No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 1566 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 1018 rows 1728 columns, reduced to 37 rows 37 columns Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (0.74 seconds) After 0.74 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 0.73 seconds Integer solution of 24 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (0.74 seconds) Full problem 1018 rows 1728 columns, reduced to 0 rows 0 columns 380 added rows had average density of 3.91316 At root node, 380 cuts changed objective from 5.6 to 17.4306 in 31 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 1543 row cuts (102 active), 0 column cuts in 0.172 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 445 row cuts (1 active), 0 column cuts in 0.412 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 4002 row cuts (231 active), 0 column cuts in 0.184 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.012 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 460 row cuts (23 active), 0 column cuts in 0.072 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in -0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 606 row cuts (23 active), 0 column cuts in 0.152 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 24 best solution, best possible 17.4306 (3.64 seconds) Integer solution of 19 found by rounding after 18670 iterations and 81 nodes (14.94 seconds) Strong branching is fixing too many variables, too expensively! Full problem 1018 rows 1728 columns, reduced to 20 rows 25 columns After 1000 nodes, 26 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (89.39 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 66 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (138.06 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 81 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (169.30 seconds) After 4000 nodes, 88 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (201.17 seconds) After 5000 nodes, 82 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (226.63 seconds) After 6000 nodes, 54 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (256.18 seconds) After 7000 nodes, 31 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (284.97 seconds) After 8000 nodes, 33 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (308.88 seconds) After 9000 nodes, 27 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (332.17 seconds) After 10000 nodes, 34 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (353.89 seconds) After 11000 nodes, 23 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (376.30 seconds) After 12000 nodes, 76 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (406.56 seconds) After 13000 nodes, 134 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (431.29 seconds) After 14000 nodes, 194 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (454.19 seconds) After 15000 nodes, 247 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (477.45 seconds) After 16000 nodes, 263 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (499.83 seconds) After 17000 nodes, 304 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (523.39 seconds) After 18000 nodes, 307 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (547.45 seconds) After 19000 nodes, 324 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (569.24 seconds) After 20000 nodes, 325 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (591.01 seconds) After 21000 nodes, 349 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (612.27 seconds) After 22000 nodes, 340 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (633.88 seconds) After 23000 nodes, 336 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (654.77 seconds) After 24000 nodes, 307 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (675.29 seconds) After 25000 nodes, 285 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (696.41 seconds) After 26000 nodes, 247 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (714.86 seconds) After 27000 nodes, 179 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (732.66 seconds) After 28000 nodes, 215 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (754.66 seconds) After 29000 nodes, 244 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (776.52 seconds) After 30000 nodes, 271 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (797.49 seconds) After 31000 nodes, 280 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (819.34 seconds) After 32000 nodes, 271 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (839.80 seconds) After 33000 nodes, 274 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (859.87 seconds) After 34000 nodes, 270 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (878.77 seconds) After 35000 nodes, 226 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (897.41 seconds) After 36000 nodes, 183 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (915.72 seconds) After 37000 nodes, 124 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (932.36 seconds) After 38000 nodes, 75 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 18 (950.31 seconds) Search completed - best objective 19, took 2096807 iterations and 38984 nodes (970.01 seconds) Strong branching done 19692 times (993900 iterations), fathomed 409 nodes and fixed 2689 variables Maximum depth 108, 51794 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 5.6 to 17.4306 Probing was tried 24410 times and created 117840 cuts of which 38394 were active after adding rounds of cuts (61.068 seconds) Gomory was tried 31 times and created 445 cuts of which 1 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.412 seconds) Knapsack was tried 24410 times and created 295457 cuts of which 67820 were active after adding rounds of cuts (78.765 seconds) Clique was tried 31 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.012 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 31 times and created 460 cuts of which 23 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.072 seconds) FlowCover was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (-0.000 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 31 times and created 606 cuts of which 23 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.152 seconds) Result - Finished objective 19 after 38984 nodes and 2096807 iterations - took 970.15 seconds (total time 970.19) Total time 970.21 Solved to optimality. Writing solution. Objective: 19 Time: 970.22 s --- Restarting execution --- neos1.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m *** Status: Normal completion --- Job neos1.gms Stop 08/21/08 09:52:47 elapsed 0:16:17.745