--- Job acc-tight-3 Start 08/21/08 16:25:14 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-3.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/acc-tight-3.gdx --- acc-tight-3.gms(148) 4 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.018 --- acc-tight-3.gms(123) 4 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- acc-tight-3.gms(124) 5 Mb --- 3,048 rows 1,336 columns 16,110 non-zeroes --- 1,335 discrete-columns --- acc-tight-3.gms(124) 5 Mb --- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.072 GAMS/CoinCbc 2.1 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 1335 columns and 3047 rows. 1335 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 - 0.78 seconds 163 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 187 substitutions 163 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions 2 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 94 substitutions 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 94 substitutions 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 4 substitutions 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 4 substitutions 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 1 substitutions 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 5 substitutions processed model has 2620 rows, 1083 columns (1083 integer) and 13632 elements Pass 1: suminf. 80.88904 obj. 0 iterations 1400 Pass 2: suminf. 71.23589 obj. 0 iterations 1055 Pass 3: suminf. 65.43459 obj. 0 iterations 820 Pass 4: suminf. 62.10489 obj. 0 iterations 647 Pass 5: suminf. 51.20451 obj. 0 iterations 888 Pass 6: suminf. 42.70997 obj. 0 iterations 866 Pass 7: suminf. 38.13843 obj. 0 iterations 860 Pass 8: suminf. 36.98459 obj. 0 iterations 395 Pass 9: suminf. 37.07630 obj. 0 iterations 598 Pass 10: suminf. 36.48887 obj. 0 iterations 558 Pass 11: suminf. 37.97722 obj. 0 iterations 864 Pass 12: suminf. 36.83514 obj. 0 iterations 372 Pass 13: suminf. 36.23588 obj. 0 iterations 472 Pass 14: suminf. 35.95623 obj. 0 iterations 304 Pass 15: suminf. 38.12150 obj. 0 iterations 1231 Pass 16: suminf. 37.37647 obj. 0 iterations 560 Pass 17: suminf. 37.18030 obj. 0 iterations 542 Pass 18: suminf. 36.79348 obj. 0 iterations 356 Pass 19: suminf. 38.02969 obj. 0 iterations 662 Pass 20: suminf. 36.91676 obj. 0 iterations 594 No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 135 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 2620 rows 1083 columns, reduced to 2412 rows 948 columns - too large Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (4.96 seconds) After 4.96 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 4.95 seconds 102 added rows had average density of 178.647 At root node, 102 cuts changed objective from 0 to 0 in 3 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 401 row cuts (84 active), 0 column cuts in 0.088 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 422 row cuts (18 active), 0 column cuts in 0.680 seconds - new frequency is 1 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 0.016 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.012 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 0.224 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (36.78 seconds) After 100 nodes, 30 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (180.29 seconds) After 200 nodes, 26 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (228.00 seconds) After 300 nodes, 29 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (270.57 seconds) After 400 nodes, 32 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (296.46 seconds) After 500 nodes, 29 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (327.32 seconds) After 600 nodes, 30 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (355.38 seconds) After 700 nodes, 32 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (375.10 seconds) After 800 nodes, 32 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (393.88 seconds) After 900 nodes, 29 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (413.52 seconds) After 1000 nodes, 30 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (448.24 seconds) After 1100 nodes, 30 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (477.21 seconds) After 1200 nodes, 29 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (507.36 seconds) After 1300 nodes, 28 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (539.30 seconds) After 1400 nodes, 33 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (562.73 seconds) After 1500 nodes, 34 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (582.27 seconds) After 1600 nodes, 35 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (606.08 seconds) After 1700 nodes, 30 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (626.91 seconds) After 1800 nodes, 36 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (648.39 seconds) After 1900 nodes, 33 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (674.12 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 34 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (697.15 seconds) After 2100 nodes, 34 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (714.77 seconds) After 2200 nodes, 31 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (738.16 seconds) After 2300 nodes, 35 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (765.92 seconds) After 2400 nodes, 37 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (794.52 seconds) After 2500 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (815.07 seconds) After 2600 nodes, 37 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (843.85 seconds) After 2700 nodes, 38 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (871.98 seconds) After 2800 nodes, 38 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (894.52 seconds) After 2900 nodes, 34 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (923.48 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 34 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (953.46 seconds) After 3100 nodes, 34 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (978.84 seconds) After 3200 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1009.54 seconds) After 3300 nodes, 41 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1030.90 seconds) After 3400 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1053.62 seconds) After 3500 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1078.33 seconds) After 3600 nodes, 39 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1106.35 seconds) After 3700 nodes, 43 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1129.36 seconds) After 3800 nodes, 41 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1146.53 seconds) After 3900 nodes, 41 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1168.40 seconds) After 4000 nodes, 46 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1186.28 seconds) After 4100 nodes, 42 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1201.68 seconds) After 4200 nodes, 44 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1227.05 seconds) After 4300 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1251.87 seconds) After 4400 nodes, 41 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1285.51 seconds) After 4500 nodes, 46 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1316.60 seconds) After 4600 nodes, 41 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1342.10 seconds) After 4700 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1368.84 seconds) After 4800 nodes, 42 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1398.44 seconds) After 4900 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1429.20 seconds) After 5000 nodes, 38 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1463.85 seconds) After 5100 nodes, 41 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1484.15 seconds) After 5200 nodes, 42 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1503.61 seconds) After 5300 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1518.55 seconds) After 5400 nodes, 42 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1538.72 seconds) After 5500 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1561.77 seconds) After 5600 nodes, 39 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1588.73 seconds) After 5700 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1614.08 seconds) After 5800 nodes, 43 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1642.75 seconds) After 5900 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1678.41 seconds) After 6000 nodes, 41 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1712.89 seconds) After 6100 nodes, 42 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1734.72 seconds) After 6200 nodes, 45 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 0 (1769.24 seconds) Exiting on maximum time Partial search - best objective 1e+50 (best possible 0), took 2547160 iterations and 6276 nodes (1796.80 seconds) Strong branching done 4190 times (414076 iterations), fathomed 0 nodes and fixed 0 variables Maximum depth 39, 0 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 0 to 0 Probing was tried 723 times and created 3150 cuts of which 1773 were active after adding rounds of cuts (1.200 seconds) Gomory was tried 723 times and created 1026 cuts of which 52 were active after adding rounds of cuts (6.948 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 (0.016 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.012 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 (0.224 seconds) Result - Stopped on time objective 1e+50 after 6276 nodes and 2547160 iterations - took 1800.72 seconds (total time 1801.50) Total time 1801.50 Time limit reached. No feasible solution found. Best possible: 0 --- Restarting execution --- acc-tight-3.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m *** Status: Normal completion --- Job acc-tight-3.gms Stop 08/21/08 16:55:20 elapsed 0:30:06.123