--- Job bc Start 08/24/08 19:49:01
GAMS Rev 227  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 0:00:00.218
--- 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 Cbc: elapsed 0:00:00.808

GAMS/Cbc 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 2.20.00, build Aug 23 2008
command line - GAMS/CBC -solve -quit
Continuous objective value is 0.782837 - 1.20 seconds
Optimal - objective value 0.782837
0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 56 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
processed model has 1876 rows, 966 columns (483 integer) and 248534 elements
Objective coefficients multiple of 1
Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999
Pass   1: suminf.    2.72336 (11) obj. 4.74473 iterations 89
Pass   2: suminf.    1.99004 (10) obj. 4.99004 iterations 125
Pass   3: suminf.    0.00000 (0) obj. 13 iterations 80
Solution found of 13
Before mini branch and bound, 461 integers at bound fixed and 461 continuous
Full problem 1876 rows 966 columns, reduced to 619 rows 44 columns
Mini branch and bound improved solution from 13 to 7 (1.80 seconds)
Round again with cutoff of 5
Reduced cost fixing fixed 95 variables on major pass 2
Pass   4: suminf.    2.72336 (11) obj. 4.74473 iterations 86
Pass   5: suminf.    1.99004 (10) obj. 4.99004 iterations 120
Pass   6: suminf.    2.00000 (10) obj. 5 iterations 1
Pass   7: suminf.    2.34462 (17) obj. 5 iterations 65
Pass   8: suminf.    2.66141 (14) obj. 5 iterations 83
Pass   9: suminf.    0.69390 (9) obj. 5 iterations 125
Pass  10: suminf.    2.53054 (12) obj. 5 iterations 223
Pass  11: suminf.    1.66101 (10) obj. 5 iterations 47
Pass  12: suminf.    3.74214 (19) obj. 5 iterations 186
Pass  13: suminf.    2.95885 (14) obj. 5 iterations 48
Pass  14: suminf.    4.45806 (14) obj. 5 iterations 161
Pass  15: suminf.    2.46785 (12) obj. 5 iterations 133
Pass  16: suminf.    3.41515 (14) obj. 5 iterations 119
Pass  17: suminf.    3.27048 (16) obj. 5 iterations 35
Pass  18: suminf.    2.72187 (14) obj. 5 iterations 25
Pass  19: suminf.    2.85348 (14) obj. 5 iterations 252
Pass  20: suminf.    1.78894 (8) obj. 5 iterations 88
Pass  21: suminf.    2.98560 (12) obj. 5 iterations 100
Pass  22: suminf.    2.22830 (10) obj. 5 iterations 113
Pass  23: suminf.    2.84995 (12) obj. 5 iterations 112
No solution found this major pass
Before mini branch and bound, 412 integers at bound fixed and 412 continuous
Full problem 1876 rows 966 columns, reduced to 872 rows 142 columns
Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (6.43 seconds)
After 6.43 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting with objective of 7 - took 6.37 seconds
Integer solution of 7 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (6.47 seconds)
Full problem 1876 rows 966 columns, reduced to 108 rows 14 columns
47 added rows had average density of 371.447
At root node, 47 cuts changed objective from 4.26645 to 5.03564 in 10 passes
Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 92 row cuts, 0 column cuts (41 active)  in 20.405 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 150 row cuts, 0 column cuts (6 active)  in 0.340 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.092 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.068 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 1075 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 2.132 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.384 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.412 seconds - new frequency is -100
Optimal - objective value 5.03564
Optimal - objective value 5.03564
After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.03564 (36.63 seconds)
After 100 nodes, 35 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (82.57 seconds)
After 200 nodes, 31 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (94.19 seconds)
After 300 nodes, 32 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (103.63 seconds)
After 400 nodes, 40 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (114.19 seconds)
After 500 nodes, 39 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (123.88 seconds)
After 600 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (136.79 seconds)
After 700 nodes, 25 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (147.48 seconds)
After 800 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (158.45 seconds)
After 900 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (169.36 seconds)
After 1000 nodes, 36 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (178.66 seconds)
After 1100 nodes, 37 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (189.70 seconds)
After 1200 nodes, 38 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (200.46 seconds)
After 1300 nodes, 38 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (212.79 seconds)
After 1400 nodes, 33 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (224.65 seconds)
After 1500 nodes, 47 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (233.42 seconds)
After 1600 nodes, 36 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (243.47 seconds)
After 1700 nodes, 40 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (251.06 seconds)
After 1800 nodes, 42 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (266.42 seconds)
After 1900 nodes, 34 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (279.23 seconds)
After 2000 nodes, 32 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (289.36 seconds)
After 2100 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (297.17 seconds)
After 2200 nodes, 47 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (305.22 seconds)
After 2300 nodes, 34 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (315.22 seconds)
After 2400 nodes, 41 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (326.62 seconds)
After 2500 nodes, 36 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (336.28 seconds)
After 2600 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (350.23 seconds)
After 2700 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (360.05 seconds)
After 2800 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (370.53 seconds)
After 2900 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (382.15 seconds)
After 3000 nodes, 35 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (389.96 seconds)
After 3100 nodes, 36 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (399.06 seconds)
After 3200 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (408.63 seconds)
After 3300 nodes, 39 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (421.93 seconds)
After 3400 nodes, 29 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (433.84 seconds)
After 3500 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (443.22 seconds)
After 3600 nodes, 33 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (458.11 seconds)
After 3700 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (468.28 seconds)
After 3800 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (480.37 seconds)
After 3900 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (495.03 seconds)
After 4000 nodes, 42 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (508.78 seconds)
After 4100 nodes, 20 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (520.30 seconds)
After 4200 nodes, 29 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (534.28 seconds)
After 4300 nodes, 32 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (543.74 seconds)
After 4400 nodes, 25 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (556.06 seconds)
After 4500 nodes, 20 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (567.91 seconds)
After 4600 nodes, 19 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (578.99 seconds)
After 4700 nodes, 16 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (596.57 seconds)
After 4800 nodes, 23 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (609.01 seconds)
After 4900 nodes, 18 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (621.37 seconds)
After 5000 nodes, 18 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (635.52 seconds)
After 5100 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (652.85 seconds)
After 5200 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (669.47 seconds)
After 5300 nodes, 24 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (680.87 seconds)
After 5400 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (691.95 seconds)
After 5500 nodes, 25 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (701.80 seconds)
After 5600 nodes, 23 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (712.76 seconds)
After 5700 nodes, 26 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (723.25 seconds)
After 5800 nodes, 31 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (734.34 seconds)
After 5900 nodes, 33 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (743.73 seconds)
After 6000 nodes, 64 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (751.16 seconds)
After 6100 nodes, 26 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (759.05 seconds)
After 6200 nodes, 29 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (768.53 seconds)
After 6300 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (778.76 seconds)
After 6400 nodes, 34 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (786.20 seconds)
After 6500 nodes, 38 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (793.97 seconds)
After 6600 nodes, 24 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (801.68 seconds)
After 6700 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (808.84 seconds)
After 6800 nodes, 26 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (816.24 seconds)
After 6900 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (823.27 seconds)
After 7000 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (832.25 seconds)
After 7100 nodes, 30 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (838.87 seconds)
After 7200 nodes, 20 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (846.55 seconds)
After 7300 nodes, 20 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (860.35 seconds)
After 7400 nodes, 22 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (871.35 seconds)
After 7500 nodes, 18 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (884.32 seconds)
After 7600 nodes, 22 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (896.73 seconds)
After 7700 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (905.67 seconds)
After 7800 nodes, 22 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (915.59 seconds)
After 7900 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (927.26 seconds)
After 8000 nodes, 26 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (935.99 seconds)
After 8100 nodes, 38 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (946.17 seconds)
After 8200 nodes, 22 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (957.19 seconds)
After 8300 nodes, 19 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (971.33 seconds)
After 8400 nodes, 26 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (981.10 seconds)
After 8500 nodes, 24 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (992.58 seconds)
After 8600 nodes, 34 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1006.31 seconds)
After 8700 nodes, 26 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1015.52 seconds)
After 8800 nodes, 23 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1026.28 seconds)
After 8900 nodes, 37 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1038.12 seconds)
After 9000 nodes, 37 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1049.71 seconds)
After 9100 nodes, 15 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1065.22 seconds)
After 9200 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1076.94 seconds)
After 9300 nodes, 29 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1085.25 seconds)
After 9400 nodes, 24 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1092.94 seconds)
After 9500 nodes, 20 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1105.42 seconds)
After 9600 nodes, 35 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1117.90 seconds)
After 9700 nodes, 16 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1127.25 seconds)
After 9800 nodes, 14 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1138.46 seconds)
After 9900 nodes, 23 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1158.16 seconds)
After 10000 nodes, 23 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1171.51 seconds)
After 10100 nodes, 34 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1183.67 seconds)
After 10200 nodes, 27 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1192.99 seconds)
After 10300 nodes, 22 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1203.86 seconds)
After 10400 nodes, 24 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1212.69 seconds)
After 10500 nodes, 28 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1220.93 seconds)
After 10600 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1229.78 seconds)
After 10700 nodes, 20 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1239.83 seconds)
After 10800 nodes, 21 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1250.54 seconds)
After 10900 nodes, 15 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1261.30 seconds)
After 11000 nodes, 22 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.12301 (1276.66 seconds)
After 11100 nodes, 68 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.22114 (1317.52 seconds)
After 11200 nodes, 106 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.24815 (1352.20 seconds)
After 11300 nodes, 132 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.26005 (1382.90 seconds)
After 11400 nodes, 171 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.27702 (1424.73 seconds)
After 11500 nodes, 204 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.28923 (1459.11 seconds)
After 11600 nodes, 233 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.30562 (1493.66 seconds)
After 11700 nodes, 260 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.31649 (1520.18 seconds)
After 11800 nodes, 295 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.32687 (1545.90 seconds)
After 11900 nodes, 320 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.3397 (1570.89 seconds)
After 12000 nodes, 339 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.34342 (1594.68 seconds)
After 12100 nodes, 359 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.35192 (1617.16 seconds)
After 12200 nodes, 387 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.35988 (1636.32 seconds)
After 12300 nodes, 404 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.36999 (1656.45 seconds)
After 12400 nodes, 429 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.37803 (1681.27 seconds)
After 12500 nodes, 455 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.38371 (1700.88 seconds)
After 12600 nodes, 480 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.39071 (1720.46 seconds)
After 12700 nodes, 511 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.39551 (1744.57 seconds)
After 12800 nodes, 532 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.40056 (1763.10 seconds)
After 12900 nodes, 550 on tree, 7 best solution, best possible 5.40363 (1781.36 seconds)
Exiting on maximum time
Partial search - best objective 7 (best possible 5.40363), took 300635 iterations and 12971 nodes (1795.10 seconds)
Strong branching done 836 times (6672 iterations), fathomed 4 nodes and fixed 85 variables
Maximum depth 129, 63471 variables fixed on reduced cost
Cuts at root node changed objective from 4.26645 to 5.03564
Probing was tried 8956 times and created 3131 cuts of which 860 were active after adding rounds of cuts (134.376 seconds)
Gomory was tried 8368 times and created 150 cuts of which 6 were active after adding rounds of cuts (173.427 seconds)
Knapsack was tried 10 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.092 seconds)
Clique was tried 10 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.068 seconds)
MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 8956 times and created 15986 cuts of which 3876 were active after adding rounds of cuts (342.549 seconds)
FlowCover was tried 10 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.384 seconds)
TwoMirCuts was tried 10 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.412 seconds)
implication was tried 4722 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts
483 bounds tightened after postprocessing
Result - Stopped on time objective 7 after 12971 nodes and 300635 iterations - took 1800.19 seconds (total time 1801.51)
Total time 1804.09

Time limit reached. Have feasible solution.
MIP solution:                     7   (12971 nodes, 1804.13 seconds)
Best possible:          5.403633579
Absolute gap:                1.5964   (absolute tolerance optca: 0)
Relative gap:               0.29542   (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 20:25:37 elapsed 0:36:36.727