My Self-Hosted Backup Setup with Proxmox Backup Server | BugzCloud.xyz

← Blog · Homelab · Self-Hosting

My Self-Hosted Backup Setup with Proxmox Backup Server

Bugz May 2026 BugzCloud.xyz

For a while I was doing what most people do — relying on a combination of cloud storage and hoping for the best. Not a real backup strategy, just a vague feeling that things were probably fine. When you’re running a homelab with VMs, containers, and services you actually depend on day to day, that stops being acceptable pretty quickly.

I eventually got around to building a proper backup setup using Proxmox Backup Server running on a small dedicated machine. It took a weekend to get right but now it just runs quietly in the background doing its thing. This is what I built, why I built it this way, and what I’d do differently if I were starting over.

The Hardware

I didn’t want to spend a lot on the backup server itself. It runs 24/7 but it doesn’t need to be fast — it just needs to be reliable, power efficient, and have enough storage to actually hold backups. A Dell OptiPlex 3060 Micro hit all of those marks.

// backup server specs:
Dell OptiPlex 3060 Micro
Intel i5-8500T (low power, 6 cores)
500GB SATA SSD — OS drive
1TB NVMe SSD — performance layer
4TB HDD — backup repository

These small form factor business machines are underrated for homelab use. They’re quiet enough to sit in a living room, they sip power compared to a full tower, and the i5-8500T specifically is a solid low-wattage chip that handles the compression and deduplication workload without breaking a sweat. I picked one up used for well under $200 and added the drives separately.

The 4TB spinning disk is where the actual backups live. HDDs are still the cheapest option per gigabyte for this kind of workload — the data sits there, gets written occasionally, and doesn’t need fast random reads. It does the job.

Why Proxmox Backup Server

The short answer is that my entire homelab runs on Proxmox VE already, so PBS was the obvious choice. The integration is native — you add it as a storage target in your Proxmox cluster and from that point backup jobs are just a few clicks to configure. No third-party agents, no weird compatibility issues.

The longer answer is that PBS does a few things really well that matter for this kind of setup. Incremental backups mean after the first full backup, subsequent runs only send what changed. That keeps backup windows short and storage usage reasonable. Deduplication on top of that means if you have ten VMs sharing similar base OS files, you’re not storing ten copies of the same data — just one copy with references.

Restores are fast. That part matters more than people realize until they actually need to restore something. Pulling a VM back from a local PBS instance takes minutes. Pulling it from a cloud backup can take hours depending on your connection and how much data is involved.

// what PBS gives you:
Incremental backups — only changed data after the first run
Deduplication — massive storage savings over time
Compression — smaller footprint on disk
Retention policies — automatically prune old backups
Encryption — data protected at rest
Fast local restores — minutes, not hours

Storage Layout

I kept the storage layout simple on purpose. The OS runs on the 500GB SATA SSD — more than enough for the PBS installation and its metadata. The 1TB NVMe handles the chunk store index and any temporary operations that benefit from faster IO. The 4TB HDD is the actual backup repository where all the data lives.

Could I have consolidated some of this? Probably. But separating OS from data from performance layer makes the whole thing easier to reason about and easier to expand later. If I fill up the 4TB I just add another drive to the repository. No reconfiguring anything else.

Why I Don’t Use Cloud Backups

I’ve used cloud backup services before and they work fine for certain things. But for a homelab running multiple VMs they stopped making sense for me pretty quickly.

The Cost Compounds

Cloud storage pricing looks reasonable until you actually start storing meaningful amounts of data. Then it compounds. You’re paying monthly forever, the bill grows as your data grows, and if you ever want to get a large restore you’re either waiting a very long time or paying egress fees on top of the storage costs. The upfront cost of a small dedicated backup machine with a 4TB drive pays for itself in a year or two compared to most cloud options.

Restore Speed Is Not a Joke

If something goes wrong in my homelab at midnight and I need to restore a VM, I want it back in ten minutes, not two hours. Local restores from PBS are genuinely fast. That speed difference is the thing cloud backup advocates tend to gloss over when comparing options.

Everything Stays Local

All my data stays on hardware I own, in my house, under my control. No third party can access it, no service can go down and take my backups with it, no policy change can affect my retention. That matters to me more than the convenience of cloud access from anywhere.

One thing worth saying clearly: local backups alone are not a complete strategy. If the house burns down or something takes out both your main server and your backup server at the same time, you lose everything. I keep copies of the most important stuff offsite too. A self-hosted setup is excellent but it shouldn’t be your only copy.

Power and Noise

This machine runs around the clock so I cared about power consumption. The i5-8500T is rated at 35W TDP and in practice the whole system pulls somewhere around 15-25W at idle, which is what it’s doing most of the time. Over a full year that’s a pretty small addition to the electricity bill.

Noise is basically nothing. It sits in the same room as my main server and I genuinely forget it’s there most of the time. Small form factor machines like this are well suited to any space where a full rack or tower would be disruptive.

Final Thoughts

I put off doing this properly for longer than I should have. It felt like a project that required a lot of planning and the right moment to sit down and figure it out. In reality it took a weekend, most of which was waiting for the initial backup jobs to complete.

If you’re running a homelab and your backup strategy is “it’s probably fine” — it’s worth spending a weekend on this. Losing a VM you’ve spent hours configuring because you didn’t have a backup is a uniquely frustrating experience. Setting this up once means you don’t have to think about it again.

There’s also something genuinely satisfying about watching a backup job complete and knowing exactly where that data lives, who has access to it, and how fast you could get it back if you needed to. That kind of certainty is hard to put a price on.

Why I Ditched Cloud Storage for a Self-Hosted Setup | BugzCloud.xyz

← Blog · Homelab · Self-Hosting

Why I Ditched Cloud Storage for a Self-Hosted Setup

Bugz April 2026 BugzCloud.xyz

Cloud storage is convenient. I used it for years without thinking too hard about it. Then I started thinking about it. The more I looked at what I was actually paying, what I was actually getting, and what the alternatives looked like, the less the cloud storage math made sense for my situation. Here’s what pushed me to switch and how the self-hosted version actually works.

The Cost Problem

Cloud storage isn’t expensive per month. That’s the hook. A few dollars a month for a terabyte feels reasonable. But a few dollars a month is $36-60 a year, and if you need multiple terabytes it scales up fast. More importantly, that cost never goes away. You pay it forever, or you lose access to your files.

Compare that to buying drives outright. A 4TB hard drive costs roughly what three to four years of a 1TB cloud subscription costs. After that it’s paid for. It still uses electricity — that’s a real ongoing cost — but it’s significantly less than the subscription, and you own the hardware at the end of it.

For someone running a homelab with a server already drawing power 24/7, adding storage to that server has nearly zero marginal cost beyond the drives themselves. The server is already on. The electricity is already being paid. The storage is effectively free once the hardware is purchased.

// the actual math:
2TB cloud storage: ~$10/month = $120/year = $600 over 5 years
2TB self-hosted on existing hardware: ~$60-80 for drives + electricity = done
Break-even point: under a year. After that it’s just cheaper every single month.

The Privacy Problem

Cost aside, the privacy angle matters more to me. When your files are on someone else’s server, someone else has access to them. That access is limited by policy and terms of service, but those policies can change, accounts can be compromised, and the simple fact remains that your data is physically located somewhere you don’t control.

I’m not storing anything particularly sensitive, but the principle matters. Photos, documents, work files — I’d rather those sit on hardware in my house than on hardware I’m renting from a corporation. When the files are on my server, the only way someone gets them is if they get into my network. That’s a much smaller attack surface than a major cloud provider that’s a constant target.

What the Self-Hosted Setup Actually Looks Like

The software side of self-hosted cloud storage has gotten genuinely good. There are several mature open-source options that provide the same core features you’d expect from a commercial service — file sync across devices, photo management, sharing, mobile apps, web interface. They’re not as polished as the commercial products in every way, but they’re functional and they’re improving constantly.

The setup process is more involved than signing up for a cloud service. You need hardware to run it on, a domain name if you want external access, and some comfort with basic server configuration. If you’re already running a homelab this is a natural fit — it’s just another service running in a container or VM alongside everything else. If you’re starting from scratch for storage specifically, the overhead is higher and you’d want to think about whether it’s worth it.

⚠️ Self-hosted means self-maintained. If your drive fails and you don’t have backups, your files are gone. Cloud services handle redundancy for you automatically. Self-hosted means you’re responsible for backups, drive health monitoring, and recovery. Don’t skip this part.

The Backup Question

This is where self-hosted storage requires more thought than cloud storage. A good cloud provider stores your data redundantly across multiple locations. If their hardware fails, they recover from backups transparently and you never know it happened.

With self-hosted storage, you are the redundancy. The minimum viable backup strategy is the 3-2-1 rule: three copies of your data, on two different media types, with one copy offsite. For a homelab setup that might mean the primary storage, a local backup drive, and a periodic backup to a cheap cloud storage tier or a drive at a different physical location.

It sounds like more work because it is more work. The tradeoff is control, cost, and privacy. Whether that tradeoff makes sense depends entirely on how much you care about those things and how much technical overhead you’re willing to manage.

Is It Worth It?

For me, yes — but I was already running the hardware. The marginal cost of adding self-hosted storage to an existing homelab server is basically just the drives. The privacy improvement is real. The cost saving over time is significant. The convenience is slightly worse than a polished commercial product but not meaningfully so once it’s set up.

If you don’t have existing homelab infrastructure and you’re considering starting one specifically for storage, run the numbers for your situation. The break-even point is real but it takes time to hit, and the setup and maintenance overhead is real too. For a lot of people the simplicity of just paying for cloud storage is worth it. For people who enjoy this kind of tinkering and want more control over where their data lives, self-hosting makes a lot of sense.

Either way, knowing the option exists and understanding roughly how it works is useful. The tools have gotten good enough that it’s not just for people with serious technical backgrounds anymore.