Just to let people know, in another thread on the same day, Patrick commented on my previous post :
Actually, this is a nice example, how things can go sideways, because users aren’t good informed! That’s not your fault, how would one know that, but it’s exemplary for such issues. It seems to be open for nearly a year, and as you stated is not solved.
Both assumptions are wrong, unfortunately. The problem was solved months ago by excluding the language model from the backup. That would have been the time to close that issue.
What you’re having is something totally different: in your case the language model gets not excluded, but that is a bug. It has nothing to do with the beginning of that Github issue, as it is not related.
One was for the general function to exclude the models, whereas yours is an error with the newly added function.
So for now, the developer has neither any idea, that something’s wrong, nor that an implemented function doesn’t work as expected…
I can see, why people get confused here, but that is always a problem, if different knowledges come together.
Curious that you are the originator of this forum thread last year.
You state that it was fixed then, and I have no reason to disbelieve you.
Unfortunately this forum thread was not marked as solved (which is not necessary, since the GitHub issue would have been). I unreservedly apologise for my mistaken impression that the issue of “models being included in backup” had not been resolved at the time.
This assertion seems to fly against the evidence. I accept that in your backup, Whisper may only use 60MB - but you didn’t mention which model you are using. Is it perhaps one of the ones excluded in last years fix ?
As you can see above, TurfFiber experienced the same issue this March, and on April 4th SaintTDI raised During a total backup, it saves Whisper's models files, raising the backup from 440MB to 1730MB · Issue #3545 · home-assistant/addons · GitHub , and I am the third user to add to that github issue.
Others do seem to have the same issue, and quoting the documentation proves only that (a) that is the intended operation, or (b) the documentation is wrong or out-of-date.
Patrick I am confused about what point you trying to make.
On one hand you are clearly saying it cannot be a bug; but is an isolated user problem - that myself and a few others have broken our systems, and it is up to us to fix whatever we have done wrong
… and then you acknowledge that there is no user configuration, for us to have done that or to fix it.
You state that a GitHub must issue be raised so the developer can take a look … as though the previously mentioned GitHub issue which was raised only last month does not do that.
Why is it not possible that the current models were excluded, but the newer larger models didn’t fit that exclusion criteria, or that something else has changed ?
I did not come here to start an argument, only to (a) confirm that another user is experiencing this issue, and (b) to provide additional information which may help debug.