Btrfs

Running Kubernetes on a single VPS is convenient — but it concentrates risk. Every application, every PVC, every bit of state lives on one machine. If that machine disappears, so does everything else. Backup is not optional here; it’s the difference between a recoverable incident and a weekend rebuild.

This post explains the backup strategy I settled on for my homelab and why the layers are the way they are. The full technical reference — including step-by-step restore commands — is in the homelab documentation.

One month in. The migration from Gentoo + Docker to Fedora Server 43 + MicroShift is complete and everything is running in production: mail stack, Nextcloud, Vaultwarden, Paperless, Collabora Online, monitoring, and this website — all on a single VPS, orchestrated by Kubernetes, managed by GitOps. So far, so good.

But let me be honest about the complexity. The full documentation runs to eight major sections covering base system, storage, firewall, WireGuard, MicroShift, GitOps, TLS, and eight services with their operational scripts. Behind that documentation are 368 commits across two repositories in four weeks — 232 in the GitOps manifests repo alone, 136 in the runbook. That’s not a “deploy and forget” setup. Every one of those commits represents something that had to be figured out, fixed, or explicitly decided.

Both Btrfs and OpenZFS are copy-on-write filesystems with native snapshots. On the surface they look similar. Under the hood, they handle one fundamental question very differently: who owns a block of data, and how do you account for it when snapshots share it?

I ran into this the hard way. Enabling Btrfs quotas on a system with hundreds of snapshots crashed my Kubernetes cluster every hour — reliably, for the same reason, until I figured out what was happening.