--- Job neos1 Start 08/21/08 23:32:15 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 --- neos1.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/neos1.gdx --- neos1.gms(148) 4 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.026 --- neos1.gms(123) 4 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- neos1.gms(124) 6 Mb --- 5,021 rows 2,113 columns 21,601 non-zeroes --- 2,112 discrete-columns --- neos1.gms(124) 6 Mb --- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.104 GAMS/CoinCbc 2.1 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 2112 columns and 5020 rows. 2112 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 5.6 - 0.04 seconds processed model has 1018 rows, 1728 columns (1728 integer) and 8208 elements Objective coefficients multiple of 1 Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999 Pass 1: suminf. 5.60000 obj. 5.6 iterations 90 Pass 2: suminf. 1.20000 obj. 23 iterations 57 Pass 3: suminf. 1.20000 obj. 23 iterations 7 Pass 4: suminf. 1.20000 obj. 23 iterations 5 Pass 5: suminf. 42.60000 obj. 54.9 iterations 403 Pass 6: suminf. 7.20000 obj. 52.6 iterations 175 Pass 7: suminf. 6.20000 obj. 52.6 iterations 21 Pass 8: suminf. 4.60000 obj. 60.8 iterations 13 Pass 9: suminf. 4.60000 obj. 60.8 iterations 0 Pass 10: suminf. 1.20000 obj. 68 iterations 18 Pass 11: suminf. 1.20000 obj. 68 iterations 5 Pass 12: suminf. 30.35000 obj. 81.65 iterations 295 Pass 13: suminf. 6.46667 obj. 79.6 iterations 163 Pass 14: suminf. 5.46667 obj. 79.6 iterations 7 Pass 15: suminf. 2.60000 obj. 85.8 iterations 14 Pass 16: suminf. 2.60000 obj. 85.8 iterations 0 Pass 17: suminf. 1.80000 obj. 85.2 iterations 11 Pass 18: suminf. 1.80000 obj. 85.2 iterations 0 Pass 19: suminf. 1.40000 obj. 85.8 iterations 6 Pass 20: suminf. 1.40000 obj. 85.2 iterations 5 No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 1417 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 1018 rows 1728 columns, reduced to 238 rows 232 columns Mini branch and bound improved solution from 1.79769e+308 to 24 (0.25 seconds) Round again with cutoff of 22.16 Pass 20: suminf. 5.60000 obj. 5.6 iterations 90 Pass 21: suminf. 2.60000 obj. 17.4 iterations 51 Pass 22: suminf. 2.60000 obj. 17.4 iterations 3 Pass 23: suminf. 1.44000 obj. 22.16 iterations 15 Pass 24: suminf. 1.44000 obj. 22.16 iterations 0 Pass 25: suminf. 1.44000 obj. 22.16 iterations 6 Pass 26: suminf. 34.97333 obj. 22.16 iterations 390 Pass 27: suminf. 9.73333 obj. 19.4667 iterations 164 Pass 28: suminf. 7.84000 obj. 22.16 iterations 19 Pass 29: suminf. 7.84000 obj. 22.16 iterations 8 Pass 30: suminf. 7.84000 obj. 22.16 iterations 4 Pass 31: suminf. 7.84000 obj. 22.16 iterations 4 Pass 32: suminf. 7.84000 obj. 22.16 iterations 5 Pass 33: suminf. 39.76000 obj. 22.16 iterations 320 Pass 34: suminf. 9.46667 obj. 17.6 iterations 170 Pass 35: suminf. 9.46667 obj. 17.6 iterations 5 Pass 36: suminf. 8.04000 obj. 22.16 iterations 14 Pass 37: suminf. 8.04000 obj. 22.16 iterations 1 Pass 38: suminf. 8.04000 obj. 22.16 iterations 4 Pass 39: suminf. 8.04000 obj. 22.16 iterations 0 No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 1437 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous Full problem 1018 rows 1728 columns, reduced to 188 rows 185 columns Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (0.43 seconds) After 0.43 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting with objective of 24 - took 0.43 seconds Integer solution of 24 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (0.43 seconds) Full problem 1018 rows 1728 columns, reduced to 0 rows 0 columns 127 added rows had average density of 10.6772 At root node, 127 cuts changed objective from 5.6 to 6.36916 in 4 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 600 row cuts (86 active), 0 column cuts in 0.164 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 187 row cuts (1 active), 0 column cuts in 0.040 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 434 row cuts (19 active), 0 column cuts in 0.024 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 103 row cuts (7 active), 0 column cuts in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 201 row cuts (14 active), 0 column cuts in 0.056 seconds - new frequency is -100 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 24 best solution, best possible 6.36916 (1.13 seconds) Full problem 1018 rows 1728 columns, reduced to 49 rows 59 columns After 1000 nodes, 210 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (102.55 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 333 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (142.77 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 479 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (189.44 seconds) After 4000 nodes, 659 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (227.76 seconds) After 5000 nodes, 841 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (258.28 seconds) After 6000 nodes, 996 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (285.26 seconds) After 7000 nodes, 1125 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (313.24 seconds) After 8000 nodes, 1199 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (331.13 seconds) After 9000 nodes, 1347 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (353.37 seconds) After 10000 nodes, 1502 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (376.12 seconds) After 11000 nodes, 1678 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 8.9996 (398.54 seconds) After 12000 nodes, 2178 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 13.066 (471.99 seconds) After 13000 nodes, 2676 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 13.5475 (536.41 seconds) After 14000 nodes, 3081 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 13.5475 (574.91 seconds) After 15000 nodes, 3580 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 13.853 (637.66 seconds) After 16000 nodes, 4080 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.0353 (697.42 seconds) After 17000 nodes, 4580 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.1718 (754.27 seconds) After 18000 nodes, 5045 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.1718 (793.45 seconds) After 19000 nodes, 5544 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.2867 (848.84 seconds) After 20000 nodes, 6044 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.3782 (902.80 seconds) After 21000 nodes, 6543 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.4444 (955.58 seconds) After 22000 nodes, 6971 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.4444 (991.55 seconds) After 23000 nodes, 7471 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.5 (1041.55 seconds) After 24000 nodes, 7969 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.5556 (1091.72 seconds) After 25000 nodes, 8468 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.6005 (1141.18 seconds) After 26000 nodes, 8842 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.6005 (1173.72 seconds) After 27000 nodes, 9342 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.6476 (1224.22 seconds) After 28000 nodes, 9842 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.6837 (1271.67 seconds) After 29000 nodes, 10341 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.7225 (1322.22 seconds) After 30000 nodes, 10841 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.76 (1372.22 seconds) After 31000 nodes, 11298 on tree, 20 best solution, best possible 14.7601 (1410.78 seconds) Integer solution of 19 found after 5134023 iterations and 31812 nodes (1437.84 seconds) Full problem 1018 rows 1728 columns, reduced to 115 rows 107 columns After 32000 nodes, 10492 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.7601 (1445.28 seconds) After 33000 nodes, 10664 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.7601 (1474.26 seconds) After 34000 nodes, 11163 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.7993 (1524.82 seconds) After 35000 nodes, 11586 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.7993 (1561.90 seconds) After 36000 nodes, 11993 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.7993 (1597.02 seconds) After 37000 nodes, 12112 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.7993 (1622.96 seconds) After 38000 nodes, 12612 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.833 (1673.54 seconds) After 39000 nodes, 13014 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.833 (1710.33 seconds) After 40000 nodes, 13431 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.833 (1747.49 seconds) After 41000 nodes, 13457 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.833 (1769.45 seconds) After 42000 nodes, 13456 on tree, 19 best solution, best possible 14.833 (1792.89 seconds) Exiting on maximum time Partial search - best objective 19 (best possible 14.833), took 6491252 iterations and 42287 nodes (1801.21 seconds) Strong branching done 31548 times (1081670 iterations), fathomed 48 nodes and fixed 1149 variables Maximum depth 119, 1.25398e+06 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 5.6 to 6.36916 Probing was tried 37975 times and created 458430 cuts of which 145561 were active after adding rounds of cuts (52.079 seconds) Gomory was tried 37879 times and created 128799 cuts of which 20299 were active after adding rounds of cuts (142.477 seconds) Knapsack was tried 37975 times and created 2135225 cuts of which 503070 were active after adding rounds of cuts (153.018 seconds) Clique was tried 4 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 4 times and created 103 cuts of which 7 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds) FlowCover was tried 4 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 4 times and created 201 cuts of which 14 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.056 seconds) Result - Stopped on time objective 19 after 42287 nodes and 6491252 iterations - took 1801.38 seconds (total time 1801.42) Total time 1801.45 Time limit reached. Have feasible solution. MIP solution: 19 (42287 nodes, 1801.46 seconds) Best possible: 14.83297749 Absolute gap: 4.167 (absolute tolerance optca: 0) Relative gap: 0.28093 (relative tolerance optcr: 0) --- Restarting execution --- neos1.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m *** Status: Normal completion --- Job neos1.gms Stop 08/22/08 00:02:46 elapsed 0:30:31.590