--- Job bc Start 08/24/08 23:16:25 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 --- bc.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/bc.gdx --- bc.gms(148) 10 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.140 --- bc.gms(123) 11 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- bc.gms(124) 22 Mb --- 1,914 rows 1,752 columns 276,844 non-zeroes --- 483 discrete-columns --- bc.gms(124) 22 Mb --- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.719 GAMS/CoinCbc 2.1 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 1751 columns and 1913 rows. 483 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 0.782837 - 1.29 seconds 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 56 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions processed model has 1876 rows, 1714 columns (483 integer) and 249282 elements Objective coefficients multiple of 1 Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999 Pass 1: suminf. 2.72336 obj. 4.74473 iterations 104 Pass 2: suminf. 1.99004 obj. 4.99004 iterations 142 Pass 3: suminf. 0.00000 obj. 13 iterations 157 Solution found of 13 Before mini branch and bound, 461 integers at bound fixed and 462 continuous Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 620 rows 619 columns Mini branch and bound improved solution from 13 to 7 (2.64 seconds) Round again with cutoff of 6.72664 Pass 4: suminf. 2.72336 obj. 4.74473 iterations 104 Pass 5: suminf. 1.99004 obj. 4.99004 iterations 142 Pass 6: suminf. 2.07110 obj. 6.72664 iterations 24 Pass 7: suminf. 1.13063 obj. 6.13063 iterations 80 Pass 8: suminf. 1.72664 obj. 6.72664 iterations 8 Pass 9: suminf. 2.53430 obj. 6.72664 iterations 80 Pass 10: suminf. 1.40819 obj. 6.40819 iterations 86 Pass 11: suminf. 1.72664 obj. 6.72664 iterations 5 Pass 12: suminf. 2.94663 obj. 6.72664 iterations 80 Pass 13: suminf. 1.63892 obj. 6.63892 iterations 98 Pass 14: suminf. 1.72664 obj. 6.72664 iterations 1 Pass 15: suminf. 1.62926 obj. 6.72664 iterations 41 Pass 16: suminf. 1.25872 obj. 6.72664 iterations 55 Pass 17: suminf. 2.04197 obj. 6.72664 iterations 207 Pass 18: suminf. 0.91676 obj. 6.72664 iterations 91 Pass 19: suminf. 0.65150 obj. 6.72664 iterations 28 Pass 20: suminf. 1.15666 obj. 6.72664 iterations 123 Pass 21: suminf. 1.15666 obj. 6.72664 iterations 0 Pass 22: suminf. 0.65319 obj. 6.72664 iterations 173 Pass 23: suminf. 1.87937 obj. 6.72664 iterations 71 Before mini branch and bound, 419 integers at bound fixed and 419 continuous Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 824 rows 815 columns Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (9.78 seconds) After 9.78 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting with objective of 0 - took 9.69 seconds Integer solution of 13 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (10.07 seconds) Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 480 rows 483 columns Integer solution of 7 found by combine solutions after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (11.42 seconds) 30 added rows had average density of 400.3 At root node, 30 cuts changed objective from 4.26645 to 4.93228 in 3 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 15 row cuts (6 active), 0 column cuts in 5.556 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 2 row cuts (1 active), 0 column cuts in 0.076 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.032 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.020 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 405 row cuts (23 active), 0 column cuts in 0.672 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 11 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.632 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.160 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 4.93228 (23.66 seconds) Strong branching is fixing too many variables, too expensively! After 100 nodes, 7 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (145.99 seconds) After 200 nodes, 9 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (195.92 seconds) After 300 nodes, 18 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (228.95 seconds) After 400 nodes, 18 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (271.20 seconds) After 500 nodes, 20 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (305.98 seconds) After 600 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (336.96 seconds) After 700 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (359.29 seconds) After 800 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (398.12 seconds) After 900 nodes, 19 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (424.99 seconds) After 1000 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (460.78 seconds) After 1100 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (490.18 seconds) After 1200 nodes, 23 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (533.20 seconds) After 1300 nodes, 29 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (569.32 seconds) After 1400 nodes, 16 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (594.59 seconds) After 1500 nodes, 11 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02361 (619.61 seconds) After 1600 nodes, 17 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.02739 (653.26 seconds) After 1700 nodes, 5 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (682.49 seconds) After 1800 nodes, 25 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (711.92 seconds) After 1900 nodes, 14 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (746.91 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 19 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (775.50 seconds) After 2100 nodes, 18 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (802.66 seconds) After 2200 nodes, 24 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (833.44 seconds) After 2300 nodes, 22 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (859.98 seconds) After 2400 nodes, 31 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (893.16 seconds) After 2500 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (924.58 seconds) After 2600 nodes, 23 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (957.80 seconds) After 2700 nodes, 17 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (995.02 seconds) After 2800 nodes, 14 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1034.65 seconds) After 2900 nodes, 18 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1072.62 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 17 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1109.34 seconds) After 3100 nodes, 22 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1146.08 seconds) After 3200 nodes, 17 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1175.11 seconds) After 3300 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1203.94 seconds) After 3400 nodes, 24 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1229.65 seconds) After 3500 nodes, 33 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1261.79 seconds) After 3600 nodes, 39 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1287.94 seconds) After 3700 nodes, 32 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1314.55 seconds) After 3800 nodes, 26 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1341.12 seconds) After 3900 nodes, 23 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1358.25 seconds) After 4000 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1380.12 seconds) After 4100 nodes, 34 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1404.48 seconds) After 4200 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1423.92 seconds) After 4300 nodes, 26 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1451.42 seconds) After 4400 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1470.36 seconds) After 4500 nodes, 29 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1488.74 seconds) After 4600 nodes, 19 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1507.14 seconds) After 4700 nodes, 25 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1529.29 seconds) After 4800 nodes, 17 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1549.53 seconds) After 4900 nodes, 17 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1581.10 seconds) After 5000 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1603.61 seconds) After 5100 nodes, 23 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1624.20 seconds) After 5200 nodes, 33 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1646.11 seconds) After 5300 nodes, 17 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1661.25 seconds) After 5400 nodes, 24 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1684.15 seconds) After 5500 nodes, 37 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1709.35 seconds) After 5600 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1733.28 seconds) After 5700 nodes, 25 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03263 (1765.09 seconds) Exiting on maximum time Partial search - best objective 7 (best possible 5.03263), took 155854 iterations and 5796 nodes (1797.13 seconds) Strong branching done 12378 times (355559 iterations), fathomed 163 nodes and fixed 4313 variables Maximum depth 151, 25195 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 4.26645 to 4.93228 Probing was tried 3099 times and created 25 cuts of which 22 were active after adding rounds of cuts (39.639 seconds) Gomory was tried 3 times and created 2 cuts of which 1 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.076 seconds) Knapsack was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.032 seconds) Clique was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.020 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 3099 times and created 11733 cuts of which 2579 were active after adding rounds of cuts (119.275 seconds) FlowCover was tried 3 times and created 11 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.632 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.160 seconds) Result - Stopped on time objective 7 after 5796 nodes and 155854 iterations - took 1800.40 seconds (total time 1801.77) Total time 1803.09 Time limit reached. Have feasible solution. MIP solution: 7 (5796 nodes, 1803.12 seconds) Best possible: 5.032629581 Absolute gap: 1.9674 (absolute tolerance optca: 0) Relative gap: 0.39092 (relative tolerance optcr: 0) --- Restarting execution --- bc.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m *** Status: Normal completion --- Job bc.gms Stop 08/24/08 23:51:01 elapsed 0:34:36.226