--- Job seymour Start 08/22/08 03:54:23
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
--- seymour.gms(106) 2 Mb
--- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/seymour.gdx
--- seymour.gms(148) 4 Mb
--- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.030
--- seymour.gms(123) 5 Mb
--- Generating MIP model m
--- seymour.gms(124) 7 Mb
---   4,945 rows  1,373 columns  34,922 non-zeroes
---   1,372 discrete-columns
--- seymour.gms(124) 7 Mb
--- Executing COINCBC: elapsed 0:00:00.125

GAMS/CoinCbc 2.1 LP/MIP Solver
written by J. Forrest
Problem statistics: 1372 columns and 4944 rows.
                    1372 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 403.846 - 1.83 seconds
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 346 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
processed model has 4808 rows, 1153 columns (1153 integer) and 33047 elements
Objective coefficients multiple of 1
Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999
Pass   1: (0.68 seconds) suminf.   88.31234 obj. 424.81 iterations 1781
Pass   2: (0.81 seconds) suminf.   62.60335 obj. 428.95 iterations 438
Pass   3: (0.87 seconds) suminf.   52.00000 obj. 431 iterations 224
Pass   4: (0.90 seconds) suminf.   52.00000 obj. 431 iterations 78
Pass   5: (0.92 seconds) suminf.   51.50000 obj. 431.5 iterations 76
Pass   6: (0.95 seconds) suminf.   21.16667 obj. 439.5 iterations 93
Pass   7: (0.97 seconds) suminf.   18.50000 obj. 439.5 iterations 91
Pass   8: (1.00 seconds) suminf.    4.50000 obj. 441.5 iterations 119
Pass   9: (1.02 seconds) suminf.    4.50000 obj. 441.5 iterations 76
Solution found of 445.5
Full problem 4809 rows 1153 columns, reduced to 5 rows 5 columns
Cleaned solution of 445
Before mini branch and bound, 485 integers at bound fixed and 0 continuous of which 2 were internal integer and 0 internal continuous
Full problem 4808 rows 1153 columns, reduced to 4422 rows 668 columns - too large
Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (1.28 seconds)
After 1.28 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting with objective of 5 - took 1.27 seconds
Integer solution of 443 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (1.67 seconds)
Full problem 4808 rows 1153 columns, reduced to 0 rows 0 columns
Integer solution of 437 found by combine solutions after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (2.08 seconds)
46 added rows had average density of 76.6304
At root node, 46 cuts changed objective from 403.846 to 408.501 in 4 passes
Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 73 row cuts (34 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.096 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 678 row cuts (9 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.756 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 0.012 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.072 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts (0 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.028 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 166 row cuts (3 active), 0 column cuts  in 0.476 seconds - new frequency is -100
After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 408.501 (8.10 seconds)
After 100 nodes, 53 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (141.30 seconds)
After 200 nodes, 111 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (221.34 seconds)
After 300 nodes, 115 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (253.70 seconds)
After 400 nodes, 115 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (280.33 seconds)
After 500 nodes, 118 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (305.93 seconds)
After 600 nodes, 113 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (326.98 seconds)
After 700 nodes, 116 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (353.49 seconds)
After 800 nodes, 118 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (376.68 seconds)
After 900 nodes, 115 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (396.52 seconds)
After 1000 nodes, 117 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (412.23 seconds)
After 1100 nodes, 115 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (430.55 seconds)
After 1200 nodes, 109 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (444.08 seconds)
After 1300 nodes, 113 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (457.58 seconds)
After 1400 nodes, 115 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (469.95 seconds)
After 1500 nodes, 111 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (480.53 seconds)
After 1600 nodes, 119 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (499.74 seconds)
After 1700 nodes, 125 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (513.32 seconds)
After 1800 nodes, 122 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (522.84 seconds)
After 1900 nodes, 121 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (532.97 seconds)
After 2000 nodes, 116 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (542.09 seconds)
After 2100 nodes, 114 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (552.25 seconds)
After 2200 nodes, 125 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (561.95 seconds)
After 2300 nodes, 117 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (570.03 seconds)
After 2400 nodes, 119 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (580.34 seconds)
After 2500 nodes, 119 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (589.17 seconds)
After 2600 nodes, 118 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (599.68 seconds)
After 2700 nodes, 118 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (607.39 seconds)
After 2800 nodes, 123 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (615.52 seconds)
After 2900 nodes, 121 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (623.03 seconds)
After 3000 nodes, 116 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (630.93 seconds)
After 3100 nodes, 125 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (640.90 seconds)
After 3200 nodes, 119 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (649.17 seconds)
After 3300 nodes, 123 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (655.89 seconds)
After 3400 nodes, 119 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (666.76 seconds)
After 3500 nodes, 123 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (673.16 seconds)
After 3600 nodes, 124 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (679.57 seconds)
After 3700 nodes, 119 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (687.25 seconds)
After 3800 nodes, 126 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (694.15 seconds)
After 3900 nodes, 125 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (701.77 seconds)
After 4000 nodes, 123 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (708.31 seconds)
After 4100 nodes, 120 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (714.55 seconds)
After 4200 nodes, 121 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (724.00 seconds)
After 4300 nodes, 121 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (730.73 seconds)
After 4400 nodes, 118 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (738.05 seconds)
After 4500 nodes, 122 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (746.75 seconds)
After 4600 nodes, 120 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (754.45 seconds)
After 4700 nodes, 115 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (763.55 seconds)
After 4800 nodes, 115 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (771.24 seconds)
After 4900 nodes, 108 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (779.66 seconds)
After 5000 nodes, 109 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (787.92 seconds)
After 5100 nodes, 114 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (795.25 seconds)
After 5200 nodes, 112 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (802.93 seconds)
After 5300 nodes, 126 on tree, 437 best solution, best possible 409.249 (808.65 seconds)
Integer solution of 436 found after 570622 iterations and 5301 nodes (808.75 seconds)
Full problem 4808 rows 1153 columns, reduced to 656 rows 218 columns
Integer solution of 431 found by combine solutions after 570860 iterations and 5302 nodes (810.05 seconds)
After 5400 nodes, 148 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (891.55 seconds)
After 5500 nodes, 199 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (948.84 seconds)
After 5600 nodes, 247 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (989.11 seconds)
After 5700 nodes, 297 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1029.25 seconds)
After 5800 nodes, 350 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1060.87 seconds)
After 5900 nodes, 397 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1092.22 seconds)
After 6000 nodes, 448 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1122.94 seconds)
After 6100 nodes, 498 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1153.80 seconds)
After 6200 nodes, 547 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1179.99 seconds)
After 6300 nodes, 597 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1208.87 seconds)
After 6400 nodes, 648 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1236.78 seconds)
After 6500 nodes, 697 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1264.85 seconds)
After 6600 nodes, 747 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1288.92 seconds)
After 6700 nodes, 797 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1314.12 seconds)
After 6800 nodes, 848 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1340.69 seconds)
After 6900 nodes, 898 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1365.68 seconds)
After 7000 nodes, 948 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1392.15 seconds)
After 7100 nodes, 997 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1416.18 seconds)
After 7200 nodes, 1047 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1440.65 seconds)
After 7300 nodes, 1099 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1465.92 seconds)
After 7400 nodes, 1147 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1491.54 seconds)
After 7500 nodes, 1197 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1516.29 seconds)
After 7600 nodes, 1248 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1540.35 seconds)
After 7700 nodes, 1297 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1560.69 seconds)
After 7800 nodes, 1348 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1581.93 seconds)
After 7900 nodes, 1397 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1604.81 seconds)
After 8000 nodes, 1447 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1628.59 seconds)
After 8100 nodes, 1498 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1653.13 seconds)
After 8200 nodes, 1548 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1680.92 seconds)
After 8300 nodes, 1598 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1706.58 seconds)
After 8400 nodes, 1648 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1729.96 seconds)
After 8500 nodes, 1698 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1755.33 seconds)
After 8600 nodes, 1748 on tree, 431 best solution, best possible 409.249 (1780.00 seconds)
Exiting on maximum time
Partial search - best objective 431 (best possible 409.762), took 2008084 iterations and 8687 nodes (1799.47 seconds)
Strong branching done 17040 times (1102687 iterations), fathomed 71 nodes and fixed 164 variables
Maximum depth 71, 112551 variables fixed on reduced cost
Cuts at root node changed objective from 403.846 to 408.501
Probing was tried 6372 times and created 1176 cuts of which 986 were active after adding rounds of cuts (24.157 seconds)
Gomory was tried 1486 times and created 8031 cuts of which 905 were active after adding rounds of cuts (30.550 seconds)
Knapsack was tried 4 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.012 seconds)
Clique was tried 4 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.012 seconds)
MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 4 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.072 seconds)
FlowCover was tried 4 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.028 seconds)
TwoMirCuts was tried 4 times and created 166 cuts of which 3 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.476 seconds)
Result - Stopped on time objective 431 after 8687 nodes and 2008084 iterations - took 1800.30 seconds (total time 1802.14)
Total time 1802.33

Time limit reached. Have feasible solution.
MIP solution:                   431   (8687 nodes, 1802.34 seconds)
Best possible:          409.7624517
Absolute gap:                21.238   (absolute tolerance optca: 0)
Relative gap:              0.051829   (relative tolerance optcr: 0)
--- Restarting execution
--- seymour.gms(124) 0 Mb
--- Reading solution for model m
--- seymour.gms(124) 4 Mb
*** Status: Normal completion
--- Job seymour.gms Stop 08/22/08 04:24:47 elapsed 0:30:23.432