Anyone else have problems uploading videos with HTML5 uploader?

rlee

So I don't think I'm seeing thing, but I think some things changed with the HTML5 uploader. What I noticed is that there is no longer a progress bar for videos. But that's not the issue, the problem I'm having is that videos I upload using the HTML5 uploader will stay in 'Upload in Progress' with no status bar and I have no idea if it is uploading. After waiting over 10 minutes for a 200MB file on a OC48 connection, I cancel it. I then go to the Flash uploader and it finishes in 5 minutes.

What's up with it and anyone else see this issue? It's very annoying to have to upload videos and pictures separately and having to switch between uploaders.

I emailed support and they seem to not know if there were updates to the uploader and couldn't really help. It happened to work one day, but now it's not working again. Today, I performed all my video uploads using the Flash uploader.

Rogue 1

Hi R -

We're chompin' at the bit to assist - but I'll need some deatils - shoot me an email on the help desk, and let me know your account name, wgcuh web browser/version and OS you use, etc. We'll get a dialogue going and see where the issue lies -

help @ smugmug.com (ATT SEAN) -

Standing by -

Seán
Support Hero
http://www.smugmug.com/help

SamirD

I've had issues with videos and the html5 uploader, as well as others. The quickest solution I've found is to use another uploader like Simple or Flash.

rlee

Rogue 1 wrote: »

Hi R -

We're chompin' at the bit to assist - but I'll need some deatils - shoot me an email on the help desk, and let me know your account name, wgcuh web browser/version and OS you use, etc. We'll get a dialogue going and see where the issue lies -

help @ smugmug.com (ATT SEAN) -

Standing by -

Seán
Support Hero
http://www.smugmug.com/help

I will submit but from comment above, others are experiencing the issue but I think people are just dealing with it using other uploaders. Thus is exactly what I have done too and I think it needs to be looked at proactively. I'm sure it can't be too difficult to duplicate. I'm using FF 5 and winXP. Didn't have this issue a month or so ago.

olegos

Same here. Video uploads are failing, the log says "upload problem: incomplete file", the stupid uploader keeps trying and retrying to upload 3 files at a time (making my Netflix streaming quality suck...)

cough cough ... Filezilla ... cough cough

SamirD

olegos wrote: »

Same here. Video uploads are failing, the log says "upload problem: incomplete file", the stupid uploader keeps trying and retrying to upload 3 files at a time (making my Netflix streaming quality suck...)

cough cough ... Filezilla ... cough cough

Vote to make FTP a possibility:
http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/294159-ftp-uploading

Using Filezilla when smugftp was around was a great experience!

olegos

SamirD wrote: »

Vote to make FTP a possibility:
http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/294159-ftp-uploading

Yep, I've been using all the votes I could on this pretty much since the beginning. I'm also the OP in your favorite thread here about FTP: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=114560

It's in top 10 now

SamirD

olegos wrote: »

Yep, I've been using all the votes I could on this pretty much since the beginning. I'm also the OP in your favorite thread here about FTP: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=114560

It's in top 10 now

Good to see we're on the same page. Andy mentioned they wanted to finish up increasing the gallery hiearchy before they work on FTP, so let's see what happens...

kost

I am unable to upload photos via HTML5 uploader anymore. The last time I was using it was 10 hours ago.
Now it's waiting for something or gives me the message:

No data received
Unable to load the webpage because the server sent no data.
Here are some suggestions:
Reload this web page later.
Error 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE): The server closed the connection without sending any data.

kost

Oh, back to normal.
It works now.

SamirD

Sounds like some sort of glitch.

rlee

SamirD wrote: »

Sounds like some sort of glitch.

I'm still unable to upload. Maybe it's FF 5.0? I think that was my only PC environmental change. Anything using FF 5.0 with no issues? I just ran into it again today and opened a support issue and had to resort to the trusty Flash Uploader.

rlee

I just got an email back from support which basically says that there is no progress bar and that he, himself uses the Simple uploader.

My question is, why doesn't the HTML5 uploader have a progress bar if this pushes others to use different uploaders (even your own support people?)?. And why are people 'dealing with it not working' by using another uploader. It should just work!

If there was FTP, I would totally ditch these uploaders.

SamirD

rlee wrote: »

I just got an email back from support which basically says that there is no progress bar and that he, himself uses the Simple uploader.

My question is, why doesn't the HTML5 uploader have a progress bar if this pushes others to use different uploaders (even your own support people?)?. And why are people 'dealing with it not working' by using another uploader. It should just work!

If there was FTP, I would totally ditch these uploaders.

While uploading is the most essential part of using SM, it still doesn't seem to get the attention that it deserves. The common response is that "millions of photos are uploaded fine...blah blah" aka 'it's just you'. The quirkiness of the SM uploaders is simply something you must deal with when using SM.

FTP would be the ultimate solution, but time will only tell if SM decides to implement it. It's #7 on the top requested items by users (http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/294159-ftp-uploading), and yet there isn't any real progress on it considering how trivial an Exposure Manager-like implementation would be. The only thing I would do is suggest voting, putting the link for the FTP discussion in your signature (like I have), and continue to press the issue.

Smugftp.com was a solution that worked, it also would've helped bridge the gap for i-device users by giving them a way to upload photos. It is unfortunate that SM disabled the app, and basically ran off the developer. So we're stuck with the SM uploaders again.

rlee

I never got the chance to use the FTP so I guess I don't miss it since I never had it. It's just frustrating when you just expect things to work, but it doesn't and it's put off since there are workarounds. If something doesn't work well, don't release it.

This is what I got from support. It pretty much confirms the mentality of the issue in that "it's not a big deal, use another method that works". A smugmug hero would fix the damn thing!

Quoted from support:
Thanks for getting back to us. The most reliable, and thus recommended, uploader for video uploads is the Simple uploader (the Java based uploader). While the others may work, we still direct folks to use the Simple or the Olde Faithful uploaders when uploading video. The HTML5 uploader is not as stable for video, I am afraid. Please let us know if you have any other questions. We are always happy to help.
Ann
SmugMug Support Hero

Andy

rlee wrote: »

I'm still unable to upload. Maybe it's FF 5.0? I think that was my only PC environmental change. Anything using FF 5.0 with no issues? I just ran into it again today and opened a support issue and had to resort to the trusty Flash Uploader.

I'm not having issues with FF5 and the HTML5 uploader. I will re-ask our bug hunting folks to check into this.

SamirD

rlee wrote: »

I never got the chance to use the FTP so I guess I don't miss it since I never had it. It's just frustrating when you just expect things to work, but it doesn't and it's put off since there are workarounds. If something doesn't work well, don't release it.

This is what I got from support. It pretty much confirms the mentality of the issue in that "it's not a big deal, use another method that works". A smugmug hero would fix the damn thing!

I've been with SM for almost half a decade now, and the one thing I universally learned is that when a new feature is introduced--A, don't use it and let others figure out all the problems, B, something else that used to work will break and have to be fixed. It's awful, but it's the way they build their software. Jfriend has also commented strongly on their development process, citing numerous times over the years where they missed key elements on the user interface (UI), implementation, or both.

Maybe most SM users are hobbyists that don't need something rock solid to build a business on. But pros do. We need reliable, robust tools that allow us to do work, period. Wasting time finding workarounds and deal with intermittent bugs is a waste of time and money for us.

I'd also like to see things fixed, or properly noted like a message at the top of the HTML5 uploader stating 'Uploading videos with this uploader is not recommended, try Simple Uploader' with the simple uploader linked--avoiding another 3 clicks to get there.

rlee

Andy wrote: »

I'm not having issues with FF5 and the HTML5 uploader. I will re-ask our bug hunting folks to check into this.

Thanks. I'm loading files 200MB+. Never had the issue a month ago. What gets me is that this used to work for me and now it doesn't and will easily upload within minutes on Flash uploader. Like SamirD says, some people are just dealing with it and working with buggy functionality because they have workarounds but if you're paying $150 a year which is the highest of a similar set of services, you expect things to just work.

It just bugs me that even support tells you to use something else instead of trying to figure out what the problem is. I'm even open to actively getting on a chat and doing an active upload to help identify the issue.

Andy

rlee wrote: »

Thanks. I'm loading files 200MB+. Never had the issue a month ago. What gets me is that this used to work for me and now it doesn't and will easily upload within minutes on Flash uploader. Like SamirD says, some people are just dealing with it and working with buggy functionality because they have workarounds but if you're paying $150 a year which is the highest of a similar set of services, you expect things to just work.

It just bugs me that even support tells you to use something else instead of trying to figure out what the problem is. I'm even open to actively getting on a chat and doing an active upload to help identify the issue.

I just did an 800mb file uploaded with the HTML5 and FF5, no problems - we'll keep trying to reliably replicate a failure.

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

I just did an 800mb file uploaded with the HTML5 and FF5, no problems - we'll keep trying to reliably replicate a failure.

You want to replicate it? Here's the test scenario that always crashes for me.

• Get a thin client running xpe and 1gb of RAM. Yes, I know these are 'unsupported', but hear me out.
• Download portable firefox 3.6 to a flash drive with a java installer.
• Run the java installer to install java onto the thin client. You will have to do this each time you reboot the thin client since it will not remember anything each time you reboot (great for avoiding malware).
• Use simple uploader to upload your 800mb file. It should upload fine.
• Change to the html5 uploader and upload the same file. This will crash the browser after a certain point in time when the fixed memory of the thin client and non-swapping xpe architecture runs out of memory.

This works for me every single time on a file 400mb-500mb+.

There's the test scenario. And here's a link to some cheap thin clients:
http://www.techforless.com/cgi-bin/tech4less/NZ489AA?id=sTzTSYA8&mv_pc=809
http://www.techforless.com/cgi-bin/tech4less/902188-01L?id=sTzTSYA8&mv_pc=1142

The ball is in SM's court.

Andy

SamirD wrote: »

The ball is in SM's court.

Maybe I'm daft - but how is replicating it in an unsupported environment going to help us?

rlee

Andy wrote: »

I just did an 800mb file uploaded with the HTML5 and FF5, no problems - we'll keep trying to reliably replicate a failure.

That boggles my mind. Just curious, how long did it take on that 800mb file? I'll run some other testing, but it seems like I might just settle using the Flash uploader because it's taking more time an effort. I'll use the HTML5 uploader when it has a progress bar for videos (i swore it used to have one).

onethumb

rlee wrote: »

Thanks. I'm loading files 200MB+. Never had the issue a month ago. What gets me is that this used to work for me and now it doesn't and will easily upload within minutes on Flash uploader. Like SamirD says, some people are just dealing with it and working with buggy functionality because they have workarounds but if you're paying $150 a year which is the highest of a similar set of services, you expect things to just work.

It just bugs me that even support tells you to use something else instead of trying to figure out what the problem is. I'm even open to actively getting on a chat and doing an active upload to help identify the issue.

One of the awesome things about the HTML5 uploader is that the browser does everything. We have very little control, other than saying "Hey, Browser, take this file the user selected and stick it on upload.smugmug.com". The browser does the rest.

One of the awful things about the HTML5 uploader is that the browser does everything. Since HTML5 is a new and emerging standard, there are still some kinks to work out - but they're not kinks we can do anything about, since we're just telling the browser "Hey, Browser, take this file the user selected and stick it on upload.smugmug.com".

It's entirely possible that FF5 has introduced a bug in that process somewhere that we haven't yet tracked down, and may require a Firefox fix to resolve. What we do know is that we haven't made any changes to the uploader, so if it used to work, it still should.

We'll continue to investigate, but this is one of the reasons we provide a variety of uploaders - because software outside of our control changes. Browsers, Java versions, Flash versions, etc.

TrousersO

SamirD wrote: »

...This will crash the browser after a certain point in time when the fixed memory of the thin client and non-swapping xpe architecture runs out of memory...

The ball is in SM's court.

I have lurked low these many months and I can lurk no more, you've brought me out sir.

The ball is in their court to do what? Ban you for being stupid? You use architecture and os's that they won't work reliably on the internet let alone conform to their specifications and you expect them to do something about it?

SamirD

Andy wrote: »

Maybe I'm daft - but how is replicating it in an unsupported environment going to help us?

That's fine, don't use a thin client. Find an xp system with the same specs and you'll probably be able to replicate the issue just as well. But good luck on finding such hardware.

You said you can't replicate the issue. I've provided a way to do that even though it fall outside the parameters a bit.

SamirD

TrousersO wrote: »

I have lurked low these many months and I can lurk no more, you've brought me out sir.

The ball is in their court to do what? Ban you for being stupid? You use architecture and os's that they won't work reliably on the internet let alone conform to their specifications and you expect them to do something about it?

Brought you out to do what? Add insults to the problem? If you think you've got a better idea to reliably replicate this problem, then post it instead of knocking my attempt to do so.

It's amazing how many people will poop on someone else for trying and do nothing other than that...

TrousersO

It's YOUR problem, it has nothing to do with SmugMug. That's the point. You are using a freaking thin-client and you expect them to conform to you? Millions of customers and I'm going to wager you are the only one doing that and you are doing it to be difficult. That's the point. Else where on here you go on and on about using 98SE and pIII 500's and you are stunned that it doesn't work. I'm stunned you haven't figured out that this is all your problem.

Andy

rlee wrote: »

What I noticed is that there is no longer a progress bar for videos.

There is - but not in Firefox - if you try Chrome or Safari, you will see the progress bar. It's a Firefox limitation, I'm told. I wish I had a better answer

SamirD

TrousersO wrote: »

It's YOUR problem, it has nothing to do with SmugMug. That's the point. You are using a freaking thin-client and you expect them to conform to you? Millions of customers and I'm going to wager you are the only one doing that and you are doing it to be difficult. That's the point. Else where on here you go on and on about using 98SE and pIII 500's and you are stunned that it doesn't work. I'm stunned you haven't figured out that this is all your problem.

Others are having the same issue with the html5 uploader and videos, which is what this thread is about. A thin client puts memory limitations which are only being sporadically reached on regular computers due to their ability to swap to disk endlessly, so it's a useful tool to replicate the problem. This is called thinking outside the box.

If you want to continue to personally attack me, save yourself from being banned and give me a call instead--615-512-5520.

TrousersO

You aren't replicating a problem, you are creating the problem, that's the point! SmugMug has said "here are the things that we support and that work with our system" and you are saying "but these things I choose to use you don't support and they don't work". Well no kidding genius.

Stop complaining. Stop making up nonsense. If you did things according to their requirements, you wouldn't have issues. You wouldn't call up Chrysler and get mad at them because a Chevy engine doesn't link up right in their cars so why are you constantly going on and on when Smugmug (Chrysler) doesn't make an exception for you (Chevy)?

Andy

SamirD wrote: »

Others are having the same issue with the html5 uploader and videos,

Please see Onethumb's post here
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1639797&postcount=23

And then try Chrome, to eliminate FF as the possible problem - thanks.