--- Job prod1 Start 08/21/08 11:37:44 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 --- prod1.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/prod1.gdx --- prod1.gms(148) 3 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.013 --- prod1.gms(123) 4 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- prod1.gms(124) 4 Mb --- 209 rows 251 columns 5,352 non-zeroes --- 149 discrete-columns --- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.028 GAMS/CoinCbc 2.0 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 250 columns and 208 rows. 149 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 -100 - 0.01 seconds 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 100 strengthened rows, 100 substitutions processed model has 107 rows, 149 columns (149 integer) and 5049 elements Objective coefficients multiple of 1 Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999 Pass 1: obj. 14.57169 --> up = 3 , down = 0 Pass 2: obj. 12.58935 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 20 ( 20) Pass 3: obj. 4.25497 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 17 ( 17) Pass 4: obj. 0.38643 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 7 ( 20) - solution found of -50 Before mini branch and bound, 82 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 107 rows 149 columns, reduced to 79 rows 64 columns Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (0.14 seconds) Round again with cutoff of -53.4416 Pass 5: obj. 14.57169 --> up = 3 , down = 0 Pass 6: obj. 12.58935 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 20 ( 20) Pass 7: obj. 4.25497 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 17 ( 17) Pass 8: obj. 0.38643 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 7 ( 20) Pass 9: obj. 3.44159 --> up = 0 , down = 4 Pass 10: obj. 0.20166 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 4 ( 12) perturbation applied Pass 11: obj. 18.57244 --> up = 0 , down = 17 Pass 12: obj. 4.43076 --> up = 2 , down = 0 Pass 13: obj. 3.18798 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 16 ( 16) Pass 14: obj. 12.62287 --> up = 1 , down = 15 perturbation applied Pass 15: obj. 15.57773 --> up = 1 , down = 12 Pass 16: obj. 5.87101 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 10 ( 10) Pass 17: obj. 8.01943 --> up = 1 , down = 9 perturbation applied Pass 18: obj. 26.44925 --> up = 3 , down = 24 Pass 19: obj. 7.53522 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 21 ( 21) Pass 20: obj. 14.56085 --> up = 3 , down = 18 perturbation applied Pass 21: obj. 15.72827 --> up = 1 , down = 11 Pass 22: obj. 6.98541 --> up = 2 , down = 0 Pass 23: obj. 6.89112 --> up = 0 , down = 0 -- rand = 19 ( 19) Pass 24: obj. 12.78569 --> No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 47 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 107 rows 149 columns, reduced to 97 rows 94 columns Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (0.32 seconds) After 0.32 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 0.32 seconds Integer solution of -50 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (0.32 seconds) Full problem 107 rows 149 columns, reduced to 0 rows 0 columns 14 added rows had average density of 94.0714 At root node, 14 cuts changed objective from -84.4159 to -82.4665 in 100 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 2.428 seconds - new frequency is 10 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 6303 row cuts (9 active), 0 column cuts in 0.304 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 4035 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.476 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) - 3502 row cuts (3 active), 0 column cuts in 1.104 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 1238 row cuts (2 active), 0 column cuts in 0.348 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, -50 best solution, best possible -82.4665 (7.09 seconds) Integer solution of -51 found by rounding after 7705 iterations and 93 nodes (8.49 seconds) Full problem 107 rows 149 columns, reduced to 54 rows 47 columns Integer solution of -52 found by rounding after 8189 iterations and 122 nodes (8.89 seconds) Full problem 107 rows 149 columns, reduced to 70 rows 59 columns Integer solution of -53 found by rounding after 12635 iterations and 695 nodes (11.62 seconds) Full problem 107 rows 149 columns, reduced to 84 rows 67 columns Strong branching is fixing too many variables, too expensively! Integer solution of -54 found by rounding after 14194 iterations and 744 nodes (15.07 seconds) Full problem 107 rows 149 columns, reduced to 101 rows 78 columns After 1000 nodes, 107 on tree, -54 best solution, best possible -70.3962 (21.38 seconds) Integer solution of -55 found by rounding after 22638 iterations and 1158 nodes (22.19 seconds) Full problem 107 rows 149 columns, reduced to 101 rows 83 columns After 2000 nodes, 278 on tree, -55 best solution, best possible -67.8286 (30.87 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 377 on tree, -55 best solution, best possible -67.1222 (34.56 seconds) Integer solution of -56 found by rounding after 58050 iterations and 3580 nodes (36.75 seconds) Full problem 107 rows 149 columns, reduced to 101 rows 85 columns After 4000 nodes, 496 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -67.1222 (43.53 seconds) After 5000 nodes, 585 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -67.1222 (46.67 seconds) After 6000 nodes, 690 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -66.2708 (49.84 seconds) After 7000 nodes, 813 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -66.2708 (53.14 seconds) After 8000 nodes, 900 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -65.3966 (56.08 seconds) After 9000 nodes, 994 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -64.9255 (58.70 seconds) After 10000 nodes, 1087 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -64.9255 (61.48 seconds) After 11000 nodes, 1182 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -64.9255 (64.16 seconds) After 12000 nodes, 1276 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -60.5912 (66.59 seconds) After 13000 nodes, 1404 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -59.9508 (69.13 seconds) After 14000 nodes, 1507 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -59.9503 (71.90 seconds) After 15000 nodes, 1686 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -59.4885 (75.02 seconds) After 16000 nodes, 1819 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -59.1077 (77.78 seconds) After 17000 nodes, 2047 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -58.8748 (80.77 seconds) After 18000 nodes, 2180 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -58.8748 (83.73 seconds) After 19000 nodes, 2485 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -58.7364 (87.05 seconds) After 20000 nodes, 2715 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -58.5886 (90.13 seconds) After 21000 nodes, 2871 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -58.4312 (92.63 seconds) After 22000 nodes, 2759 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -58.4308 (94.83 seconds) After 23000 nodes, 2859 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -58.2126 (96.95 seconds) After 24000 nodes, 2988 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -58 (99.30 seconds) After 25000 nodes, 3281 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.9485 (102.60 seconds) After 26000 nodes, 3069 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.9485 (104.65 seconds) After 27000 nodes, 3273 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.9086 (107.78 seconds) After 28000 nodes, 3301 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.867 (110.24 seconds) After 29000 nodes, 3169 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.8268 (112.46 seconds) After 30000 nodes, 2860 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.8268 (114.04 seconds) After 31000 nodes, 2652 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.764 (116.02 seconds) After 32000 nodes, 2351 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.685 (117.70 seconds) After 33000 nodes, 1978 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.5955 (119.00 seconds) After 34000 nodes, 1723 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.5953 (120.99 seconds) After 35000 nodes, 1317 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.4267 (122.10 seconds) After 36000 nodes, 854 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57.1272 (122.96 seconds) After 37000 nodes, 938 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57 (125.33 seconds) After 38000 nodes, 492 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57 (128.21 seconds) After 39000 nodes, 311 on tree, -56 best solution, best possible -57 (131.55 seconds) Search completed - best objective -56, took 431946 iterations and 39889 nodes (134.27 seconds) Strong branching done 10516 times (123522 iterations), fathomed 62 nodes and fixed 485 variables Maximum depth 58, 229879 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from -84.4159 to -82.4665 Probing was tried 2199 times and created 4973 cuts of which 4257 were active after adding rounds of cuts (13.157 seconds) Gomory was tried 4617 times and created 6324 cuts of which 11 were active after adding rounds of cuts (2.160 seconds) Knapsack was tried 4622 times and created 52205 cuts of which 2599 were active after adding rounds of cuts (5.172 seconds) Clique was tried 100 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.012 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 4622 times and created 49222 cuts of which 9568 were active after adding rounds of cuts (22.045 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 100 times and created 1238 cuts of which 2 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.348 seconds) Result - Finished objective -56 after 39889 nodes and 431946 iterations - took 134.58 seconds (total time 134.59) Total time 134.60 Solved to optimality. Writing solution. Objective: -56 Time: 134.6 s --- Restarting execution --- prod1.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m *** Status: Normal completion --- Job prod1.gms Stop 08/21/08 11:39:59 elapsed 0:02:14.921