--- Job bc1 Start 08/21/08 18:07:31
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
--- bc1.gms(106) 2 Mb
--- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/bc1.gdx
--- bc1.gms(148) 10 Mb
--- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.131
--- bc1.gms(123) 11 Mb
--- Generating MIP model m
--- bc1.gms(124) 22 Mb
---   1,914 rows  1,752 columns  276,844 non-zeroes
---   252 discrete-columns
--- bc1.gms(124) 22 Mb
--- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.613

GAMS/CoinCbc 2.1 LP/MIP Solver
written by J. Forrest
Problem statistics: 1751 columns and 1913 rows.
                    252 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 - 1.02 seconds
processed model has 1876 rows, 1714 columns (252 integer) and 249282 elements
Pass   1: suminf.    0.46133 obj. 3.68229 iterations 302
Solution found of 4.22095
Before mini branch and bound, 248 integers at bound fixed and 670 continuous
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 646 rows 642 columns
Mini branch and bound improved solution from 4.22095 to 3.48382 (1.27 seconds)
Freeing continuous variables gives a solution of 3.44084
Round again with cutoff of 3.31475
Pass   2: suminf.    0.46133 obj. 3.31475 iterations 293
Pass   3: suminf.    0.13217 obj. 3.31475 iterations 266
Pass   4: suminf.    1.53061 obj. 3.31475 iterations 353
Pass   5: suminf.    0.99513 obj. 3.31475 iterations 139
Pass   6: suminf.    0.19460 obj. 3.31475 iterations 301
Pass   7: suminf.    0.12905 obj. 3.31475 iterations 37
Pass   8: suminf.    0.51201 obj. 3.31475 iterations 354
Pass   9: suminf.    0.66410 obj. 3.31475 iterations 226
Pass  10: suminf.    2.28008 obj. 3.31475 iterations 213
Pass  11: suminf.    0.70135 obj. 3.31475 iterations 213
Pass  12: suminf.    0.62529 obj. 3.31475 iterations 147
Pass  13: suminf.    0.58844 obj. 3.31475 iterations 80
Pass  14: suminf.    1.43947 obj. 3.31475 iterations 210
Pass  15: suminf.    0.73852 obj. 3.31475 iterations 77
Pass  16: suminf.    0.14340 obj. 3.31475 iterations 112
Pass  17: suminf.    1.53061 obj. 3.31475 iterations 272
Pass  18: suminf.    0.99513 obj. 3.31475 iterations 113
Pass  19: suminf.    0.19460 obj. 3.31475 iterations 243
Pass  20: suminf.    0.12905 obj. 3.31475 iterations 29
Pass  21: suminf.    2.06094 obj. 3.31475 iterations 182
Before mini branch and bound, 226 integers at bound fixed and 552 continuous
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 951 rows 936 columns - too large
Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (7.36 seconds)
After 7.36 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting with objective of 1 - took 7.28 seconds
Integer solution of 3.44692 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (7.59 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1182 rows 1107 columns - too large
10 added rows had average density of 303.1
At root node, 10 cuts changed objective from 2.17994 to 2.54132 in 3 passes
Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 3 row cuts (1 active), 0 column cuts  in 2.256 seconds - new frequency is 2
Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.072 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.028 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) - 121 row cuts (9 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.216 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 1 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.448 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.100 seconds - new frequency is -100
After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 3.44692 best solution, best possible 2.54132 (14.37 seconds)
Strong branching is fixing too many variables, too expensively!
After 100 nodes, 15 on tree, 3.44692 best solution, best possible 2.58762 (96.36 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1221 rows 1145 columns - too large
After 200 nodes, 30 on tree, 3.44579 best solution, best possible 2.60169 (144.42 seconds)
After 300 nodes, 68 on tree, 3.44579 best solution, best possible 2.60222 (181.61 seconds)
After 400 nodes, 91 on tree, 3.44579 best solution, best possible 2.60222 (202.81 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1259 rows 1182 columns - too large
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1265 rows 1188 columns - too large
After 500 nodes, 107 on tree, 3.43606 best solution, best possible 2.62819 (233.43 seconds)
After 600 nodes, 128 on tree, 3.43606 best solution, best possible 2.62819 (253.39 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1276 rows 1200 columns - too large
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1295 rows 1219 columns - too large
After 700 nodes, 136 on tree, 3.43324 best solution, best possible 2.62819 (285.90 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1312 rows 1234 columns - too large
After 800 nodes, 151 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 2.63473 (308.22 seconds)
After 900 nodes, 198 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 2.68312 (353.88 seconds)
After 1000 nodes, 213 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.01307 (391.61 seconds)
After 1100 nodes, 240 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.0734 (421.99 seconds)
After 1200 nodes, 272 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.09053 (447.63 seconds)
After 1300 nodes, 292 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.10481 (471.49 seconds)
After 1400 nodes, 315 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.11737 (495.67 seconds)
After 1500 nodes, 327 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.12643 (518.36 seconds)
After 1600 nodes, 339 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.13305 (539.13 seconds)
After 1700 nodes, 342 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.14768 (557.21 seconds)
After 1800 nodes, 348 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.15423 (576.11 seconds)
After 1900 nodes, 362 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.16453 (595.31 seconds)
After 2000 nodes, 367 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.17482 (617.38 seconds)
After 2100 nodes, 394 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.18171 (635.89 seconds)
After 2200 nodes, 417 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.18798 (652.37 seconds)
After 2300 nodes, 438 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.1928 (668.03 seconds)
After 2400 nodes, 462 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.19717 (683.03 seconds)
After 2500 nodes, 493 on tree, 3.41692 best solution, best possible 3.20009 (697.94 seconds)
Integer solution of 3.39361 found after 176226 iterations and 2503 nodes (698.93 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1316 rows 1238 columns - too large
After 2600 nodes, 443 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.20535 (715.12 seconds)
After 2700 nodes, 456 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.20863 (731.87 seconds)
After 2800 nodes, 466 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.21339 (747.69 seconds)
After 2900 nodes, 473 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.22007 (765.07 seconds)
After 3000 nodes, 490 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.2306 (781.78 seconds)
After 3100 nodes, 504 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.23822 (799.25 seconds)
After 3200 nodes, 520 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.24286 (815.13 seconds)
After 3300 nodes, 539 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.24923 (829.40 seconds)
After 3400 nodes, 542 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.25469 (845.25 seconds)
After 3500 nodes, 548 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.25735 (859.15 seconds)
After 3600 nodes, 552 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.26362 (875.26 seconds)
After 3700 nodes, 558 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.26833 (891.73 seconds)
After 3800 nodes, 561 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.27209 (906.12 seconds)
After 3900 nodes, 565 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.27647 (919.94 seconds)
After 4000 nodes, 564 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.27992 (933.95 seconds)
After 4100 nodes, 564 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.2817 (948.92 seconds)
After 4200 nodes, 562 on tree, 3.39361 best solution, best possible 3.28396 (962.68 seconds)
Integer solution of 3.39139 found after 269642 iterations and 4203 nodes (963.70 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1318 rows 1240 columns - too large
After 4300 nodes, 553 on tree, 3.39139 best solution, best possible 3.28601 (979.46 seconds)
Integer solution of 3.38334 found after 277811 iterations and 4353 nodes (986.95 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1319 rows 1242 columns - too large
After 4400 nodes, 490 on tree, 3.38334 best solution, best possible 3.29173 (994.25 seconds)
After 4500 nodes, 488 on tree, 3.38334 best solution, best possible 3.2958 (1006.92 seconds)
After 4600 nodes, 489 on tree, 3.38334 best solution, best possible 3.29828 (1018.94 seconds)
After 4700 nodes, 486 on tree, 3.38334 best solution, best possible 3.30283 (1031.98 seconds)
Integer solution of 3.3711 found after 299079 iterations and 4765 nodes (1040.13 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1324 rows 1246 columns - too large
After 4800 nodes, 397 on tree, 3.3711 best solution, best possible 3.30524 (1044.99 seconds)
Integer solution of 3.36652 found after 305277 iterations and 4898 nodes (1056.96 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1328 rows 1250 columns - too large
After 4900 nodes, 364 on tree, 3.36652 best solution, best possible 3.30669 (1058.07 seconds)
After 5000 nodes, 359 on tree, 3.36652 best solution, best possible 3.3089 (1071.58 seconds)
After 5100 nodes, 356 on tree, 3.36652 best solution, best possible 3.31065 (1084.78 seconds)
After 5200 nodes, 355 on tree, 3.36652 best solution, best possible 3.31324 (1095.68 seconds)
After 5300 nodes, 354 on tree, 3.36652 best solution, best possible 3.31477 (1107.64 seconds)
After 5400 nodes, 353 on tree, 3.36652 best solution, best possible 3.31652 (1119.66 seconds)
Integer solution of 3.36492 found after 332195 iterations and 5451 nodes (1126.23 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1328 rows 1250 columns - too large
After 5500 nodes, 339 on tree, 3.36492 best solution, best possible 3.31951 (1132.65 seconds)
After 5600 nodes, 336 on tree, 3.36492 best solution, best possible 3.32155 (1145.52 seconds)
After 5700 nodes, 326 on tree, 3.36492 best solution, best possible 3.3235 (1157.73 seconds)
After 5800 nodes, 324 on tree, 3.36492 best solution, best possible 3.32539 (1169.27 seconds)
After 5900 nodes, 321 on tree, 3.36492 best solution, best possible 3.32721 (1181.00 seconds)
After 6000 nodes, 319 on tree, 3.36492 best solution, best possible 3.32881 (1193.19 seconds)
After 6100 nodes, 316 on tree, 3.36492 best solution, best possible 3.33008 (1205.67 seconds)
Integer solution of 3.33836 found after 367432 iterations and 6186 nodes (1215.92 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 1714 columns, reduced to 1330 rows 1252 columns - too large
After 6200 nodes, 105 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.33146 (1218.54 seconds)
After 6300 nodes, 98 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.33256 (1230.22 seconds)
After 6400 nodes, 83 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.33347 (1241.15 seconds)
After 6500 nodes, 76 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.33451 (1252.43 seconds)
After 6600 nodes, 57 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.33564 (1263.85 seconds)
After 6700 nodes, 41 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.33659 (1274.66 seconds)
After 6800 nodes, 20 on tree, 3.33836 best solution, best possible 3.33794 (1285.16 seconds)
Search completed - best objective 3.338362547640875, took 399681 iterations and 6853 nodes (1290.46 seconds)
Strong branching done 3194 times (148904 iterations), fathomed 61 nodes and fixed 532 variables
Maximum depth 114, 16962 variables fixed on reduced cost
Cuts at root node changed objective from 2.17994 to 2.54132
Probing was tried 2550 times and created 3 cuts of which 5 were active after adding rounds of cuts (25.538 seconds)
Gomory was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.072 seconds)
Knapsack was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.028 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 4004 times and created 3128 cuts of which 1091 were active after adding rounds of cuts (138.397 seconds)
FlowCover was tried 3 times and created 1 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.448 seconds)
TwoMirCuts was tried 3 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.100 seconds)
Result - Finished objective 3.338362547640875 after 6853 nodes and 399681 iterations - took 1292.03 seconds (total time 1293.12)
Total time 1299.55

Solved to optimality.
MIP solution:           3.338362548   (6853 nodes, 1299.58 seconds)
Best possible:          3.338362548
Absolute gap:                     0   (absolute tolerance optca: 0)
Relative gap:                     0   (relative tolerance optcr: 0)
--- Restarting execution
--- bc1.gms(124) 0 Mb
--- Reading solution for model m
*** Status: Normal completion
--- Job bc1.gms Stop 08/21/08 18:32:42 elapsed 0:25:10.649