Most of the time everything is OK. However, there are intermittent problems. Yesterday, for example, a series of unknown events switched off testtags.php and trends-inc.html creation, plus a couple of other critical files needed for the basic Carterlake-style/AJAX/PHP-based website. However, the discussions in this thread have led to discovery of additional stress for WD running in Computer B; namely, the 2-ftp limit could be creating problems. On computer B, I see no clear indication of an ftp problem from the FTP Logs and the snippet of the Clientraw RT ftp log which is available at a given time. When a connection is not allowed, WD’s ftp clients seem to do what I think think they should. (Maybe you or other readers can find something I cannot.)
The log file for computer A didn't look like a WD log file. Is computer A having issues with WDFtp? Or is it just when using filezilla that the errors are generated?
Computer A is running WD and talking to the same weather station as Computer B. But while primed to upload to its website, it has not been turned on to do so. Why? Each and every step of the installation and setup of WD on Computer A has been documented as best as I could. Every bug in existing documentation has been logged, every unexpected behavior of WD investigated, etc. It should be ready to go. But if you search the forums, you find a constant steam of other issues that may or may not be relevant. Lots of folks are experiencing "intermittents" and encounter problems related to the templates and scripts. Many of these problems seem to be related to having WD consistently create and upload critical files. The problem is, it is not clear what has been done by the users. So many boxes to check, so many conditions to set, and so easy to make a logical mistake or a typo...
I was hoping to capture as many of the changes in settings and the webfiles directory as I can once WD was commanded to upload by turning on the Main Internet Switch. Before switch on, however, there were a number issues to explore. While taking care of these things, Computer A’s installation of WD is being monitored to see how it behaves without feeding the website. A number of problems have been reported already.
There are several purposes for this exercise. One concerns my impression that WD is essentially a black box. It is a fascinating black box and does nice things once working, but discovering how it works is akin to playing a game like SPORE. Were it not for the base of experience and the willingness to help and share by all the folks on these forums, WD would suffer enormously. In fact, the tipping point in maintainability could be approaching, no matter how skilled and conscientious the developer.
What does this have to do with your question? I want to try and produce a step-by-step protocol for going from the initial installation of WD all the way to havng basic working Carterlake-style/AJAX/PHP-based website. Again, why? Producing and debugging documentation seems to be a critical part nowadays in debugging software. When you try and produce systematic instructions, you perform systematic tests that should be more reproducible. But as I am finding out, understanding both the initial conditions and outside influences is not so simple. I am also decades out of date, and what little I once may have known is long forgotten.
To simplify, computer B is running WD and uploading files correctly.
Almost, as explained above.
Computer A is having a problem ftp'ing files to another server, and, is not using the WDFtp program?
Did I get that right?
Almost right. I used Computer A to 1) demonstrate the ECONNABORTED error and 2) run other tests as suggested by readers of this thread. Again, Computer A is just cocked and waiting up fire. Now I know I need to increase the number of ftp-connections permitted on its website to eliminate potential problems.
Re the initial question: My guess is that the FileZilla development team is in a standards war. If you have an older version of the program and it works, Niko’s suggestion of not fixing it until it’s broken is a good one. SourceForge may even have older versions you can download. I have not checked. CoreFTP looks like a good alternative. Without all of the ECONNAORTED errors, it seemed pretty fast to me. The standards gurus may say it is, however, not complaint. That is not my problem.
Hope this helps explain things. Thanks for the questions. They helped me try and figure out why I am mucking about so much…