I have searched the existing issues and discussions.
I am using the latest version of Open WebUI.
Installation Method
Git Clone
Open WebUI Version
v0.6.26
Ollama Version (if applicable)
No response
Operating System
Linux
Browser (if applicable)
No response
Confirmation
I have read and followed all instructions in README.md.
I am using the latest version of both Open WebUI and Ollama.
I have included the browser console logs.
I have included the Docker container logs.
I have provided every relevant configuration, setting, and environment variable used in my setup.
I have clearly listed every relevant configuration, custom setting, environment variable, and command-line option that influences my setup (such as Docker Compose overrides, .env values, browser settings, authentication configurations, etc).
I have documented step-by-step reproduction instructions that are precise, sequential, and leave nothing to interpretation. My steps:
Start with the initial platform/version/OS and dependencies used,
Specify exact install/launch/configure commands,
List URLs visited, user input (incl. example values/emails/passwords if needed),
Describe all options and toggles enabled or changed,
Include any files or environmental changes,
Identify the expected and actual result at each stage,
Ensure any reasonably skilled user can follow and hit the same issue.
Expected Behavior
Docker image with USE_SLIM is actually smaller
Actual Behavior
Docker image size with "USE_SLIM=true":
v0.6.26 21b2b08167db 2 minutes ago 10.6GB
compared to v0.6.25:
v0.6.25 3a2f34e59121 3 days ago 5.8GB
Steps to Reproduce
Build Docker image with the following perameters:
docker build . --build-arg USE_SLIM=true
Logs & Screenshots
v0.6.26 21b2b08167db 2 minutes ago 10.6GB
v0.6.25 3a2f34e59121 3 days ago 5.8GB
Additional Information
No response
Originally created by @tobiasge on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/issues/16997
### Check Existing Issues
- [x] I have searched the existing issues and discussions.
- [x] I am using the latest version of Open WebUI.
### Installation Method
Git Clone
### Open WebUI Version
v0.6.26
### Ollama Version (if applicable)
_No response_
### Operating System
Linux
### Browser (if applicable)
_No response_
### Confirmation
- [x] I have read and followed all instructions in `README.md`.
- [x] I am using the latest version of **both** Open WebUI and Ollama.
- [x] I have included the browser console logs.
- [x] I have included the Docker container logs.
- [x] I have **provided every relevant configuration, setting, and environment variable used in my setup.**
- [x] I have clearly **listed every relevant configuration, custom setting, environment variable, and command-line option that influences my setup** (such as Docker Compose overrides, .env values, browser settings, authentication configurations, etc).
- [x] I have documented **step-by-step reproduction instructions that are precise, sequential, and leave nothing to interpretation**. My steps:
- Start with the initial platform/version/OS and dependencies used,
- Specify exact install/launch/configure commands,
- List URLs visited, user input (incl. example values/emails/passwords if needed),
- Describe all options and toggles enabled or changed,
- Include any files or environmental changes,
- Identify the expected and actual result at each stage,
- Ensure any reasonably skilled user can follow and hit the same issue.
### Expected Behavior
Docker image with USE_SLIM is actually smaller
### Actual Behavior
Docker image size with "USE_SLIM=true":
v0.6.26 21b2b08167db 2 minutes ago 10.6GB
compared to v0.6.25:
v0.6.25 3a2f34e59121 3 days ago 5.8GB
### Steps to Reproduce
Build Docker image with the following perameters:
docker build . --build-arg USE_SLIM=true
### Logs & Screenshots
v0.6.26 21b2b08167db 2 minutes ago 10.6GB
v0.6.25 3a2f34e59121 3 days ago 5.8GB
### Additional Information
_No response_
GiteaMirror
added the bug label 2026-04-20 00:13:18 -05:00
<!-- gh-comment-id:3234151313 -->
@tjbck commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025):
Should be addressed with 0ebe4f8f8490451ac8e85a4846f010854d9b54e5, be373e9fd42ac73b0302bdb487e16dbeae178b4e
I am getting a different result from @felixhummel .
% docker images | grep open-webui
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26 3121ba5f8526 6 hours ago 7.51GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26-slim 8796bc8c4e9a 6 hours ago 5.45GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main 06f4cae7f887 6 hours ago 7.51GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main-slim 966b9e75d376 6 hours ago 5.45GB
not sure what thats about. I am on arm architecture for refrence.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3234242519 -->
@a1cd commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025):
I am getting a different result from @felixhummel .
```
% docker images | grep open-webui
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26 3121ba5f8526 6 hours ago 7.51GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26-slim 8796bc8c4e9a 6 hours ago 5.45GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main 06f4cae7f887 6 hours ago 7.51GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main-slim 966b9e75d376 6 hours ago 5.45GB
```
not sure what thats about. I am on arm architecture for refrence.
$ arch
x86_64
$ docker image ls ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26-slim 8df2e8e401dd 18 hours ago 10.4GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26 3d550c8f0c66 18 hours ago 5.57GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main-slim ea4319c30667 18 hours ago 10.4GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main 1df9c23da52b 18 hours ago 5.57GB
$ docker image pull ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main
main: Pulling from open-webui/open-webui
Digest: sha256:06f4cae7f8873ebcee7952d9993e457c1b083c6bea67b10bc356db7ac71c28e2
Status: Image is up to date for ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main
$ docker image pull ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main-slim
main-slim: Pulling from open-webui/open-webui
Digest: sha256:966b9e75d37685541a1a4c9ea93c64663c6eee26f47d73b20a817c90cfe9ae0a
Status: Image is up to date for ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main-slim
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main-slim
Digest: sha256:06f4cae7f8873ebcee7952d9993e457c1b083c6bea67b10bc356db7ac71c28e2 → main image
Digest: sha256:966b9e75d37685541a1a4c9ea93c64663c6eee26f47d73b20a817c90cfe9ae0a → main-slim image
<!-- gh-comment-id:3235722517 -->
@gakugaku commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
Same result.
```shell-session
$ arch
x86_64
$ docker image ls ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26-slim 8df2e8e401dd 18 hours ago 10.4GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26 3d550c8f0c66 18 hours ago 5.57GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main-slim ea4319c30667 18 hours ago 10.4GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main 1df9c23da52b 18 hours ago 5.57GB
$ docker image pull ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main
main: Pulling from open-webui/open-webui
Digest: sha256:06f4cae7f8873ebcee7952d9993e457c1b083c6bea67b10bc356db7ac71c28e2
Status: Image is up to date for ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main
$ docker image pull ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main-slim
main-slim: Pulling from open-webui/open-webui
Digest: sha256:966b9e75d37685541a1a4c9ea93c64663c6eee26f47d73b20a817c90cfe9ae0a
Status: Image is up to date for ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main-slim
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:main-slim
```
Digest: `sha256:06f4cae7f8873ebcee7952d9993e457c1b083c6bea67b10bc356db7ac71c28e2` → [main image](https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pkgs/container/open-webui/498907921?tag=main)
Digest: `sha256:966b9e75d37685541a1a4c9ea93c64663c6eee26f47d73b20a817c90cfe9ae0a` → [main-slim image](https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pkgs/container/open-webui/498912069?tag=main-slim)
Maybe the github action isn't merging the images properly and causing Amd (x86_64) architecture users to have both? Yall both seem to be using the x86 images, because the hashes are the same. I think it must have something to do with architecture.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3235735770 -->
@a1cd commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
Maybe the github action isn't merging the images properly and causing Amd (x86_64) architecture users to have both? Yall both seem to be using the x86 images, because the hashes are the same. I think it must have something to do with architecture.
I have the same issue when doing local build. With the combination below the image is around 15 Gb, when setting slim to false results in around 8 Gb
USE_CUDA=falseUSE_OLLAMA=falseUSE_SLIM=true
<!-- gh-comment-id:3236052084 -->
@cableman commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
I have the same issue when doing local build. With the combination below the image is around 15 Gb, when setting slim to false results in around 8 Gb
```bash
USE_CUDA=false
USE_OLLAMA=false
USE_SLIM=true
```
The fixes in be373e9 made the image fallback to 6 Gb for my local build
<!-- gh-comment-id:3236137747 -->
@cableman commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
The fixes in [be373e9](https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/be373e9fd42ac73b0302bdb487e16dbeae178b4e) made the image fallback to 6 Gb for my local build
These were both downloaded fresh after clearing all previous images and caches, just now.
<!-- gh-comment-id:3237784147 -->
@paul-forgeguard commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
Published images are still affected:
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:dev-slim: 4.3 GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:latest-slim: 10.4 GB
These were both downloaded fresh after clearing all previous images and caches, just now.
Can confirm that latest-slim is still showing as twice as big as latest as of 2025-09-01
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui latest-slim ea4319c30667 4 days ago 10.4GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui latest 1df9c23da52b 4 days ago 5.57GB
<!-- gh-comment-id:3242379212 -->
@Maleya commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 2025):
Can confirm that `latest-slim` is still showing as twice as big as `latest` as of 2025-09-01
```
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui latest-slim ea4319c30667 4 days ago 10.4GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui latest 1df9c23da52b 4 days ago 5.57GB
```
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui dev c73bb728c2a7 8 hours ago 4.8GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui dev-slim 6a1d0d322a18 8 hours ago 4.28GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui cuda 42983612c65d 4 days ago 11.6GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui latest-slim ea4319c30667 4 days ago 10.4GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui latest 1df9c23da52b 4 days ago 5.57GB
<!-- gh-comment-id:3243036344 -->
@ireun commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 2025):
^^
```
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui dev c73bb728c2a7 8 hours ago 4.8GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui dev-slim 6a1d0d322a18 8 hours ago 4.28GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui cuda 42983612c65d 4 days ago 11.6GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui latest-slim ea4319c30667 4 days ago 10.4GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui latest 1df9c23da52b 4 days ago 5.57GB
```
Watching this - need smaller images to allow our scandocker to run on eks. Now failing after hours of churn, and all our models are external. (Save whisper, but we don't need that.)
<!-- gh-comment-id:3246332448 -->
@ctwardy commented on GitHub (Sep 2, 2025):
Watching this - need smaller images to allow our scandocker to run on eks. Now failing after hours of churn, and all our models are external. (Save whisper, but we don't need that.)
<!-- gh-comment-id:3274927909 -->
@gakugaku commented on GitHub (Sep 10, 2025):
https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.6.27
> 📦 The slim Docker image size regression has been fixed by refining the build process to correctly exclude components when USE_SLIM=true. https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/issues/16997, [Commit](https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/be373e9fd42ac73b0302bdb487e16dbeae178b4e), [Commit](https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/commit/0ebe4f8f8490451ac8e85a4846f010854d9b54e5)
$ docker image ls ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.28 9e7fae191633 2 days ago 4.85GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.28-slim caca33774baa 2 days ago 4.33GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main 1f5b44efbe23 2 days ago 4.85GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main-slim cdd58e9ba7e5 2 days ago 4.33GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.27 4147aebea4e3 3 days ago 4.8GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.27-slim 581709175051 3 days ago 4.28GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26 3d550c8f0c66 2 weeks ago 5.57GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26-slim 8df2e8e401dd 2 weeks ago 10.4GB
<!-- gh-comment-id:3285982245 -->
@gakugaku commented on GitHub (Sep 12, 2025):
```
$ docker image ls ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.28 9e7fae191633 2 days ago 4.85GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.28-slim caca33774baa 2 days ago 4.33GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main 1f5b44efbe23 2 days ago 4.85GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui main-slim cdd58e9ba7e5 2 days ago 4.33GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.27 4147aebea4e3 3 days ago 4.8GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.27-slim 581709175051 3 days ago 4.28GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26 3d550c8f0c66 2 weeks ago 5.57GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui 0.6.26-slim 8df2e8e401dd 2 weeks ago 10.4GB
```
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Originally created by @tobiasge on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/issues/16997
Check Existing Issues
Installation Method
Git Clone
Open WebUI Version
v0.6.26
Ollama Version (if applicable)
No response
Operating System
Linux
Browser (if applicable)
No response
Confirmation
README.md.Expected Behavior
Docker image with USE_SLIM is actually smaller
Actual Behavior
Docker image size with "USE_SLIM=true":
v0.6.26 21b2b08167db 2 minutes ago 10.6GB
compared to v0.6.25:
v0.6.25 3a2f34e59121 3 days ago 5.8GB
Steps to Reproduce
Build Docker image with the following perameters:
docker build . --build-arg USE_SLIM=true
Logs & Screenshots
v0.6.26 21b2b08167db 2 minutes ago 10.6GB
v0.6.25 3a2f34e59121 3 days ago 5.8GB
Additional Information
No response
@felixhummel commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025):
:D
@tjbck commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025):
Should be addressed with
0ebe4f8f84,be373e9fd4@a1cd commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025):
I am getting a different result from @felixhummel .
not sure what thats about. I am on arm architecture for refrence.
@gakugaku commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
Same result.
Digest:
sha256:06f4cae7f8873ebcee7952d9993e457c1b083c6bea67b10bc356db7ac71c28e2→ main imageDigest:
sha256:966b9e75d37685541a1a4c9ea93c64663c6eee26f47d73b20a817c90cfe9ae0a→ main-slim image@a1cd commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
Maybe the github action isn't merging the images properly and causing Amd (x86_64) architecture users to have both? Yall both seem to be using the x86 images, because the hashes are the same. I think it must have something to do with architecture.
@cableman commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
I have the same issue when doing local build. With the combination below the image is around 15 Gb, when setting slim to false results in around 8 Gb
@cableman commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
The fixes in be373e9 made the image fallback to 6 Gb for my local build
@paul-forgeguard commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):
Published images are still affected:
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:dev-slim: 4.3 GB
ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:latest-slim: 10.4 GB
These were both downloaded fresh after clearing all previous images and caches, just now.
@Maleya commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 2025):
Can confirm that
latest-slimis still showing as twice as big aslatestas of 2025-09-01@recrudesce commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 2025):
Just pulled
latestand it's 2.5gb. Pulledlatest-slimimmediately afterwards and it's 5.2gb.@ireun commented on GitHub (Sep 1, 2025):
^^
@ctwardy commented on GitHub (Sep 2, 2025):
Watching this - need smaller images to allow our scandocker to run on eks. Now failing after hours of churn, and all our models are external. (Save whisper, but we don't need that.)
@gakugaku commented on GitHub (Sep 10, 2025):
https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/releases/tag/v0.6.27
@gakugaku commented on GitHub (Sep 12, 2025):