Post a reply

Before posting, please read how to report bug or request support effectively.

Bug reports without an attached log file are usually useless.

Options
Add an Attachment

If you do not want to add an Attachment to your Post, please leave the Fields blank.

(maximum 10 MB; please compress large files; only common media, archive, text and programming file formats are allowed)

Options

Topic review

martin

Re: WinSCP not detecting that upload is successful

Thanks. I do not see any wrong behavior on WinSCP side. Can you upload a file using any other SFTP client?
davids

Re: WinSCP not detecting that upload is successful

I've attached the log, Martin. I ended up having to cancel the job, because it was approaching an hour, and it just kept sending the entire file each time.
martin

Re: WinSCP not detecting that upload is successful

Please attach a full session log file showing the problem (using the latest version of WinSCP).

To generate the session log file, use /log=path_to_log_file command-line argument. Submit the log with your post as an attachment. Note that passwords and passphrases not stored in the log. You may want to remove other data you consider sensitive though, such as host names, IP addresses, account names or file names (unless they are relevant to the problem). If you do not want to post the log publicly, you can mark the attachment as private.
davids

WinSCP not detecting that upload is successful

When I upload files to a particular site, the files will upload 100%, but it seems that WinSCP doesn't know that.

I tried running the script command manually, from a command line, and I could see the file was almost immediately uploaded 100% (it is only 34k), then there was a pause, then I got the message "Host is not communicating for more than 15 seconds", and then ultimately the session would reset and it would attempt the upload again.

I've spoken to the people at the remote site, and they tell me that each time we are uploading the entire file.

So why can't WinSCP see that? Is there some obscure bug in the remote site that we need to compensate for?

Not sure if this is useful or not, but I've been told that the remote site uses the services of Globalscape.