The feature was implemented already, see version history. It will be included into the next release.

Thanks a lot!

Pawel

OK, added to TODO list.

Yes, I've read this.

"When both options are checked, Modification time has higher priority. As a consequence, file is not considered updated, despite having different size, if it is older."

Unfortunatelly this does not allow to solve auto-backup problem if remote timestamp is newer than local one and remote file is corrupted (different size). This file is simply skipped...

So my question is still open:

Is there existing option or any chance to add such feature to have WinSCP option "Force overwrite if different (timestamp OR size)" for local->remote and remote->local syncs?

Hint 1: with this option enabled, during auto-backup, local file should be copied if there is a difference in size and local file is OLDER than remote one. Now WinSCP skips such file because it is older.

Hint 2: After sync, remote dir must be exacly the same as local dir (true mirror-backup requirement).

Using delete + copy from the beginning is not an option (to much data).

Turning off timestamp comparsion and leaving only size comparsion is not an option in backup scenario.

Thanks for reply,
Pawel

You can synchronize even files with different size. See documentation.

Hi,

Thanks for nice tool.

I use winscp to make auto backup of my local dir to remote dir (batch synchronize mode, binary, compare criterions = modifiaction time). I cannot force winscp to overwrite newer files in remote dir (i want copy local -> remote always when local timestamp != remote timestamp or local size != remote size). Sometimes broken backup sessions leave corrupted remote file with newer timestamp (before timestamp update at the end of file transfer?) and next sync sessions skip this file because it has newer timestamp. This simple thing makes winscp problematic as backup tool.

Is there existing option or any chance to add such feature to have WinSCP option "Force overwrite if different (timestamp or size)" for local->remote and remote->local syncs?

Thanks,
Pawel