--- Job acc-tight-2 Start 08/21/08 16:01:48 GAMS Rev 228 Copyright (C) 1987-2008 GAMS Development. All rights reserved Licensee: Stefan Vigerske G071106/0001CB-LNX Humboldt University Berlin, Numerical Mathematics DC5918 --- Starting compilation --- acc-tight-2.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/acc-tight-2.gdx --- acc-tight-2.gms(148) 4 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.022 --- acc-tight-2.gms(123) 4 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- acc-tight-2.gms(124) 5 Mb --- 3,286 rows 1,621 columns 17,075 non-zeroes --- 1,620 discrete-columns --- acc-tight-2.gms(124) 5 Mb --- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.079 GAMS/CoinCbc 2.1 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 1620 columns and 3285 rows. 1620 variables have integrality restrictions. Calling CBC main solution routine... Coin Cbc and Clp Solver version 2.10.00, build Jun 21 2008 command line - GAMS/CBC -solve -quit Continuous objective value is 0 - 1.06 seconds 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 106 substitutions processed model has 3391 rows, 1620 columns (1620 integer) and 17285 elements Objective coefficients multiple of 1 Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999 Pass 1: (1.32 seconds) suminf. 92.67688 obj. 0.151095 iterations 3432 Pass 2: (2.36 seconds) suminf. 77.72478 obj. 0.135434 iterations 2546 Pass 3: (3.24 seconds) suminf. 68.31014 obj. 0 iterations 2323 Pass 4: (3.68 seconds) suminf. 64.62395 obj. 0 iterations 1120 Pass 5: (4.54 seconds) suminf. 60.82204 obj. 0 iterations 2059 Pass 6: (5.59 seconds) suminf. 59.20140 obj. 0 iterations 2590 Pass 7: (6.17 seconds) suminf. 57.56577 obj. 0 iterations 1286 Pass 8: (6.52 seconds) suminf. 57.32453 obj. 0 iterations 838 Pass 9: (7.49 seconds) suminf. 55.89357 obj. 0 iterations 2411 Pass 10: (7.92 seconds) suminf. 54.94623 obj. 0 iterations 932 Pass 11: (8.32 seconds) suminf. 54.13503 obj. 0 iterations 979 Pass 12: (8.91 seconds) suminf. 52.91647 obj. 0 iterations 1511 Pass 13: (9.13 seconds) suminf. 52.64706 obj. 0 iterations 532 Pass 14: (9.88 seconds) suminf. 50.25601 obj. 0 iterations 1764 Pass 15: (10.48 seconds) suminf. 48.08614 obj. 0 iterations 1492 Pass 16: (10.83 seconds) suminf. 47.44160 obj. 0 iterations 867 Pass 17: (11.76 seconds) suminf. 46.69663 obj. 0 iterations 2399 Pass 18: (12.28 seconds) suminf. 45.61040 obj. 0 iterations 1121 Pass 19: (12.80 seconds) suminf. 45.06976 obj. 0 iterations 1278 Pass 20: (12.97 seconds) suminf. 45.03292 obj. 0 iterations 372 No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 412 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 3391 rows 1620 columns, reduced to 2676 rows 1180 columns - too large Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (14.07 seconds) After 14.07 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 14.06 seconds 93 added rows had average density of 150.161 At root node, 93 cuts changed objective from 0 to 0 in 3 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 568 row cuts (84 active), 0 column cuts in 0.116 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 470 row cuts (9 active), 0 column cuts in 1.116 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.016 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.012 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.016 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 0.296 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (48.88 seconds) After 100 nodes, 53 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (246.69 seconds) After 200 nodes, 87 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (367.65 seconds) After 300 nodes, 87 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (400.23 seconds) After 400 nodes, 93 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (427.14 seconds) After 500 nodes, 92 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (455.33 seconds) After 600 nodes, 93 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (493.07 seconds) After 700 nodes, 98 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (523.16 seconds) After 800 nodes, 96 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (550.50 seconds) After 900 nodes, 94 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (585.40 seconds) After 1000 nodes, 94 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (621.40 seconds) After 1100 nodes, 92 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (662.87 seconds) After 1200 nodes, 91 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (695.13 seconds) After 1300 nodes, 89 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (734.02 seconds) After 1400 nodes, 85 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (786.34 seconds) After 1500 nodes, 90 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (841.14 seconds) After 1600 nodes, 93 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (878.28 seconds) After 1700 nodes, 101 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (921.03 seconds) After 1800 nodes, 96 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (953.36 seconds) After 1900 nodes, 100 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (985.88 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 95 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1017.92 seconds) After 2100 nodes, 103 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1052.06 seconds) After 2200 nodes, 98 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1093.48 seconds) After 2300 nodes, 104 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1138.92 seconds) After 2400 nodes, 104 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1179.65 seconds) After 2500 nodes, 106 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1224.21 seconds) After 2600 nodes, 111 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1274.19 seconds) After 2700 nodes, 129 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1322.27 seconds) After 2800 nodes, 138 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1364.33 seconds) Integer solution of 0 found after 1767259 iterations and 2890 nodes (1400.72 seconds) Search completed - best objective 0, took 1767259 iterations and 2890 nodes (1400.73 seconds) Strong branching done 4818 times (471119 iterations), fathomed 0 nodes and fixed 0 variables Maximum depth 46, 0 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 0 to 0 Probing was tried 439 times and created 1769 cuts of which 886 were active after adding rounds of cuts (1.036 seconds) Gomory was tried 439 times and created 731 cuts of which 25 were active after adding rounds of cuts (6.548 seconds) Knapsack was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.016 seconds) Clique was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.012 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.016 seconds) FlowCover was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.004 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.296 seconds) Result - Finished objective 0 after 2890 nodes and 1767259 iterations - took 1401.04 seconds (total time 1402.11) Total time 1402.14 Solved to optimality. MIP solution: 0 (2890 nodes, 1402.15 seconds) Best possible: 0 Absolute gap: 0 (absolute tolerance optca: 0) Relative gap: 0 (relative tolerance optcr: 0) --- Restarting execution --- acc-tight-2.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m --- acc-tight-2.gms(124) 3 Mb *** Status: Normal completion --- Job acc-tight-2.gms Stop 08/21/08 16:25:14 elapsed 0:23:25.880