Skip to content

Conversation

@kmiller68
Copy link
Contributor

Whisper is a much more diverse workload in comparison to Bert but has some notable downsides. In particular, the model is much bigger and its overall memory footprint is much higher. This causes memory issues on iOS and seems to be related to a relatively high jetsam rate there.

Whisper also takes much longer to run than Bert. So getting rid of the longer workload speeds up the benchmark overall.

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Oct 21, 2025

Deploy Preview for webkit-jetstream-preview ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 3870ecc
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/webkit-jetstream-preview/deploys/69032ac93ac5f100084a6585
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-212--webkit-jetstream-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

@kmiller68
Copy link
Contributor Author

CC @eqrion

@camillobruni
Copy link
Contributor

@danleh would it be possible to have a trimmed-down version of this model running instead?

@kmiller68 kmiller68 force-pushed the disable-whisper-wasm branch from 864a583 to d314d91 Compare October 30, 2025 09:05
Whisper is a much more diverse workload in comparison to Bert but has some
notable downsides. In particular, the model is much bigger and its
overall memory footprint is much higher. This causes memory issues
on iOS and seems to be related to a relatively high jetsam rate there.

Whisper also takes much longer to run than Bert. So getting rid of
the longer workload speeds up the benchmark overall.
@kmiller68 kmiller68 force-pushed the disable-whisper-wasm branch from d314d91 to 3870ecc Compare October 30, 2025 09:07
@kmiller68
Copy link
Contributor Author

CI / Build error seems unrelated to this PR.

Per sync discussions we're going to deprecate this in favor of BERT.

@kmiller68 kmiller68 merged commit 99b925c into WebKit:main Oct 30, 2025
10 of 11 checks passed
@danleh
Copy link
Contributor

danleh commented Oct 30, 2025

I would say disable instead of deprecate (I think we should keep this in the repo and ideally still evaluate internally and work on reducing the memory consumption, if we can), but otherwise: thanks for the analysis and merging!

@kmiller68
Copy link
Contributor Author

I would say disable instead of deprecate

Ah, yeah, fair enough, disable is definitely more accurate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants