--- Job neos6 Start 08/24/08 04:34:31 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 --- neos6.gms(106) 2 Mb --- GDXin=/home/stefan/work/gams/models/LINlib/neos6.gdx --- neos6.gms(148) 10 Mb --- Starting execution: elapsed 0:00:00.181 --- neos6.gms(123) 10 Mb --- Generating MIP model m --- neos6.gms(124) 19 Mb --- 1,037 rows 8,787 columns 252,170 non-zeroes --- 8,340 discrete-columns --- neos6.gms(124) 18 Mb --- Executing Cbc: elapsed 0:00:00.659 GAMS/Cbc 2.1 LP/MIP Solver written by J. Forrest Problem statistics: 8786 columns and 1036 rows. 8340 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 83 - 0.63 seconds Optimal - objective value 83 0 fixed, 223 tightened bounds, 0 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions processed model has 1008 rows, 8563 columns (8340 integer) and 243363 elements Objective coefficients multiple of 1 Cutoff increment increased from 1e-05 to 0.999 Pass 1: suminf. 10.56365 (66) obj. 92.9443 iterations 599 Pass 2: suminf. 8.03704 (32) obj. 93.3 iterations 270 Pass 3: suminf. 5.53333 (20) obj. 104.533 iterations 404 Pass 4: suminf. 3.62222 (24) obj. 106.15 iterations 417 Pass 5: suminf. 4.02222 (12) obj. 114.3 iterations 207 Pass 6: suminf. 3.58333 (10) obj. 114.5 iterations 223 Pass 7: suminf. 3.58333 (10) obj. 114.5 iterations 105 Pass 8: suminf. 14.51282 (71) obj. 123.878 iterations 712 Pass 9: suminf. 4.44444 (17) obj. 124.444 iterations 656 Pass 10: suminf. 1.58333 (8) obj. 120.667 iterations 102 Pass 11: suminf. 1.16667 (8) obj. 121.708 iterations 234 Pass 12: suminf. 1.22222 (8) obj. 124.875 iterations 141 Pass 13: suminf. 0.69444 (6) obj. 126 iterations 129 Pass 14: suminf. 0.44444 (4) obj. 126 iterations 97 Pass 15: suminf. 0.44444 (4) obj. 126 iterations 149 Pass 16: suminf. 0.88889 (4) obj. 126 iterations 149 Pass 17: suminf. 0.66667 (4) obj. 126 iterations 141 Pass 18: suminf. 0.66667 (4) obj. 126 iterations 148 Pass 19: suminf. 12.75000 (55) obj. 138.625 iterations 656 Pass 20: suminf. 2.48889 (10) obj. 144.533 iterations 395 No solution found this major pass Before mini branch and bound, 8088 integers at bound fixed and 119 continuous Full problem 1008 rows 8563 columns, reduced to 392 rows 356 columns Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (5.79 seconds) Full problem 1009 rows 8563 columns, reduced to 1009 rows 8563 columns - too large After 11.14 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 11.05 seconds 3 added rows had average density of 779.333 At root node, 3 cuts changed objective from 83 to 83 in 4 passes Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 1.536 seconds - new frequency is 1000 Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 1 row cuts, 0 column cuts (1 active) in 0.152 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.024 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 51 row cuts, 0 column cuts (1 active) in 0.024 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.348 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.060 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 1 row cuts, 0 column cuts (1 active) in 0.424 seconds - new frequency is -100 Optimal - objective value 83 Optimal - objective value 83 After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 83 (15.41 seconds) After 100 nodes, 53 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 83 (36.22 seconds) Integer solution of 84 found after 21471 iterations and 174 nodes (48.66 seconds) After 200 nodes, 83 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (50.25 seconds) After 300 nodes, 99 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (54.82 seconds) After 400 nodes, 103 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (58.00 seconds) After 500 nodes, 107 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (61.46 seconds) After 600 nodes, 107 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (65.10 seconds) After 700 nodes, 122 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (68.72 seconds) After 800 nodes, 127 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (71.96 seconds) After 900 nodes, 127 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (75.70 seconds) After 1000 nodes, 131 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (79.59 seconds) After 1100 nodes, 125 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (83.52 seconds) After 1200 nodes, 145 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (87.63 seconds) After 1300 nodes, 145 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (91.63 seconds) After 1400 nodes, 156 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (95.39 seconds) After 1500 nodes, 159 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (98.91 seconds) After 1600 nodes, 169 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (102.57 seconds) After 1700 nodes, 170 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (106.49 seconds) After 1800 nodes, 180 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (110.25 seconds) After 1900 nodes, 181 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (113.90 seconds) After 2000 nodes, 179 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (117.77 seconds) After 2100 nodes, 185 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (121.87 seconds) After 2200 nodes, 177 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (125.52 seconds) After 2300 nodes, 178 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (129.74 seconds) After 2400 nodes, 201 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (133.95 seconds) After 2500 nodes, 225 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (138.10 seconds) After 2600 nodes, 238 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (142.05 seconds) After 2700 nodes, 232 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (145.62 seconds) After 2800 nodes, 236 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (149.26 seconds) After 2900 nodes, 242 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (153.19 seconds) After 3000 nodes, 241 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (156.83 seconds) After 3100 nodes, 250 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (161.05 seconds) After 3200 nodes, 246 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (165.05 seconds) After 3300 nodes, 254 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (169.15 seconds) After 3400 nodes, 262 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (173.13 seconds) After 3500 nodes, 260 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (177.46 seconds) After 3600 nodes, 259 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (181.58 seconds) After 3700 nodes, 259 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (185.77 seconds) After 3800 nodes, 277 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (190.16 seconds) After 3900 nodes, 281 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (193.68 seconds) After 4000 nodes, 281 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (197.18 seconds) After 4100 nodes, 277 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (200.92 seconds) After 4200 nodes, 276 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (204.89 seconds) After 4300 nodes, 284 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (208.86 seconds) After 4400 nodes, 277 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (212.54 seconds) After 4500 nodes, 297 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (216.61 seconds) After 4600 nodes, 286 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (220.57 seconds) After 4700 nodes, 298 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (224.49 seconds) After 4800 nodes, 302 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (228.13 seconds) After 4900 nodes, 300 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (231.63 seconds) After 5000 nodes, 298 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (235.00 seconds) After 5100 nodes, 309 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (239.15 seconds) After 5200 nodes, 314 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (243.54 seconds) After 5300 nodes, 311 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (247.69 seconds) After 5400 nodes, 315 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (251.57 seconds) After 5500 nodes, 318 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (255.32 seconds) After 5600 nodes, 320 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (258.88 seconds) After 5700 nodes, 325 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (262.57 seconds) After 5800 nodes, 329 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (266.65 seconds) After 5900 nodes, 329 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (269.97 seconds) After 6000 nodes, 326 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (273.87 seconds) After 6100 nodes, 327 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (277.38 seconds) After 6200 nodes, 328 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (280.54 seconds) After 6300 nodes, 323 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (283.81 seconds) After 6400 nodes, 331 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (287.55 seconds) After 6500 nodes, 338 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (291.14 seconds) After 6600 nodes, 337 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (295.11 seconds) After 6700 nodes, 340 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (299.13 seconds) After 6800 nodes, 340 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (302.82 seconds) After 6900 nodes, 337 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (306.32 seconds) After 7000 nodes, 337 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (310.10 seconds) After 7100 nodes, 341 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (313.89 seconds) After 7200 nodes, 335 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (317.88 seconds) After 7300 nodes, 336 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (321.89 seconds) After 7400 nodes, 339 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (326.22 seconds) After 7500 nodes, 356 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (330.82 seconds) After 7600 nodes, 366 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (334.96 seconds) After 7700 nodes, 368 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (338.81 seconds) After 7800 nodes, 376 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (343.08 seconds) After 7900 nodes, 379 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (347.71 seconds) After 8000 nodes, 383 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (351.36 seconds) After 8100 nodes, 384 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (355.44 seconds) After 8200 nodes, 389 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (359.25 seconds) After 8300 nodes, 389 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (362.78 seconds) After 8400 nodes, 389 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (366.80 seconds) After 8500 nodes, 395 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (370.83 seconds) After 8600 nodes, 395 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (374.42 seconds) After 8700 nodes, 393 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (378.14 seconds) After 8800 nodes, 390 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (381.74 seconds) After 8900 nodes, 395 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (385.62 seconds) After 9000 nodes, 395 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (389.38 seconds) After 9100 nodes, 396 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (392.61 seconds) After 9200 nodes, 398 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (396.63 seconds) After 9300 nodes, 399 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (400.47 seconds) After 9400 nodes, 406 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (404.43 seconds) After 9500 nodes, 423 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (408.61 seconds) After 9600 nodes, 454 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (413.33 seconds) After 9700 nodes, 463 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (417.58 seconds) After 9800 nodes, 471 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (422.03 seconds) After 9900 nodes, 483 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (425.63 seconds) After 10000 nodes, 487 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (429.67 seconds) After 10100 nodes, 474 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (433.80 seconds) After 10200 nodes, 478 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (437.66 seconds) After 10300 nodes, 483 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (441.48 seconds) After 10400 nodes, 490 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (445.79 seconds) After 10500 nodes, 484 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (450.09 seconds) After 10600 nodes, 485 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (453.74 seconds) After 10700 nodes, 489 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (457.85 seconds) After 10800 nodes, 484 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (461.84 seconds) After 10900 nodes, 479 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (465.85 seconds) After 11000 nodes, 475 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (469.42 seconds) After 11100 nodes, 530 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (477.42 seconds) After 11200 nodes, 581 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (484.87 seconds) After 11300 nodes, 635 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (492.57 seconds) After 11400 nodes, 688 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (499.48 seconds) After 11500 nodes, 743 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (505.37 seconds) After 11600 nodes, 793 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (511.72 seconds) After 11700 nodes, 847 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (518.22 seconds) After 11800 nodes, 899 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (524.62 seconds) After 11900 nodes, 952 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (530.92 seconds) After 12000 nodes, 1005 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (537.21 seconds) After 12100 nodes, 1062 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (543.23 seconds) After 12200 nodes, 1113 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (548.95 seconds) After 12300 nodes, 1163 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (554.48 seconds) After 12400 nodes, 1215 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (560.05 seconds) After 12500 nodes, 1268 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (566.11 seconds) After 12600 nodes, 1314 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (572.40 seconds) After 12700 nodes, 1363 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (578.36 seconds) After 12800 nodes, 1406 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (584.62 seconds) After 12900 nodes, 1457 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (591.38 seconds) After 13000 nodes, 1511 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (597.01 seconds) After 13100 nodes, 1561 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (602.07 seconds) After 13200 nodes, 1601 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (607.41 seconds) After 13300 nodes, 1626 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (612.21 seconds) After 13400 nodes, 1636 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (616.02 seconds) After 13500 nodes, 1665 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (620.26 seconds) After 13600 nodes, 1693 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (624.86 seconds) After 13700 nodes, 1716 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (628.90 seconds) After 13800 nodes, 1738 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (633.65 seconds) After 13900 nodes, 1770 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (638.60 seconds) After 14000 nodes, 1783 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (643.34 seconds) After 14100 nodes, 1836 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (649.90 seconds) After 14200 nodes, 1883 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (655.88 seconds) After 14300 nodes, 1933 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (661.54 seconds) After 14400 nodes, 1985 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (667.26 seconds) After 14500 nodes, 2038 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (672.81 seconds) After 14600 nodes, 2091 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (678.23 seconds) After 14700 nodes, 2141 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (683.87 seconds) After 14800 nodes, 2182 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (689.47 seconds) After 14900 nodes, 2226 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (694.64 seconds) After 15000 nodes, 2273 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (700.16 seconds) After 15100 nodes, 2324 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (706.69 seconds) After 15200 nodes, 2374 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (711.50 seconds) After 15300 nodes, 2426 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (717.88 seconds) After 15400 nodes, 2473 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (724.29 seconds) After 15500 nodes, 2515 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (729.92 seconds) After 15600 nodes, 2561 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (735.65 seconds) After 15700 nodes, 2607 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (741.66 seconds) After 15800 nodes, 2658 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (748.55 seconds) After 15900 nodes, 2700 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (754.72 seconds) After 16000 nodes, 2748 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (760.24 seconds) After 16100 nodes, 2793 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (765.91 seconds) After 16200 nodes, 2843 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (772.55 seconds) After 16300 nodes, 2896 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (779.45 seconds) After 16400 nodes, 2954 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (785.05 seconds) After 16500 nodes, 3004 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (790.65 seconds) After 16600 nodes, 3047 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (796.41 seconds) After 16700 nodes, 3095 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (803.92 seconds) After 16800 nodes, 3140 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (810.71 seconds) After 16900 nodes, 3190 on tree, 84 best solution, best possible 83 (816.18 seconds) Integer solution of 83 found after 1754785 iterations and 16933 nodes (817.92 seconds) Search completed - best objective 83, took 1754785 iterations and 16933 nodes (818.59 seconds) Strong branching done 1746 times (18008 iterations), fathomed 0 nodes and fixed 0 variables Maximum depth 73, 229833 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 83 to 83 Probing was tried 6674 times and created 2765 cuts of which 974 were active after adding rounds of cuts (58.140 seconds) Gomory was tried 4 times and created 1 cuts of which 1 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.152 seconds) Knapsack was tried 4 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.024 seconds) Clique was tried 3737 times and created 73718 cuts of which 2705 were active after adding rounds of cuts (18.497 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 4 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.348 seconds) FlowCover was tried 4 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.060 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 4 times and created 1 cuts of which 1 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.424 seconds) implication was tried 7127 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts 223 bounds tightened after postprocessing Result - Finished objective 83 after 16933 nodes and 1754785 iterations - took 820.04 seconds (total time 820.70) Total time 820.96 Solved to optimality. MIP solution: 83 (16933 nodes, 821 seconds) Best possible: 83 Absolute gap: 0 (absolute tolerance optca: 0) Relative gap: 0 (relative tolerance optcr: 0) --- Restarting execution --- neos6.gms(124) 0 Mb --- Reading solution for model m --- neos6.gms(124) 10 Mb *** Status: Normal completion --- Job neos6.gms Stop 08/24/08 04:48:59 elapsed 0:14:28.556