On 30-04-14 15:04, Rupesh M G wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tested Optaplanner successfully for a fleet planning application.
> Upto 1200 trips with around 80 vehicles for 3 days is fine.
> I'm reaching the target of 0 hard constraints in less than 30 minutes.
>
> But my target is to plan for a month with 12000 trips using 80 vehicles.
> This time it didn't complete even after 12 hours.
> I found the memory (< 500 MB) and CPU (25%) usage is less.
> So tried running 3 solver threads and grouping the vehicles.
> Now CPU usage increases.
>
> I followed the vehicle routing sample application and the config xml is very 
> similar.
> I used late acceptance (200) and accept count (1000).
>
> I'm using incremental score calculation; and applied change & swap filters in 
> the config xml.
>
> Requesting experts for some thoughts on how Optaplanner can scale on similar 
> situations.

See the 2 blog articles by Roman about VRP in this section:
   http://www.optaplanner.org/learn/testimonialsAndCaseStudies.html
He uses geo-fencing to scale.

I don't believe geo-fencing is the best approach,
I am working on nearby selection, which I believe will be better 
(because it still allows any location to go to any other location):
   https://issues.jboss.org/browse/PLANNER-202
Some time ago, I did an experiment with nearby selection on a TSP 
variant with 150 000 locations and it worked well.

Also, the 6.1 beta's have seen some small perf improvements related to 
vehicle routing IIRC.

>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Rupesh
>
>
>
>
>
> DISCLAIMER: "The information in this e-mail and any attachment is intended 
> only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential 
> and/or privileged material. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly 
> contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original communication. IBS 
> makes no warranty, express or implied, nor guarantees the accuracy, adequacy 
> or completeness of the information contained in this email or any attachment 
> and is not liable for any errors, defects, omissions, viruses or for 
> resultant loss or damage, if any, direct or indirect."
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>


_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Reply via email to