Windows 11 intègre le WEI, un score de performance basé sur WinSAT. Voici à quoi il sert, comment il est calculé, et surtout comment l’afficher (et le recalculer) en quelques secondes via PowerShell.
Cet article Windows 11 : comment afficher l’indice de performance caché de votre PC ? a été publié en premier par GinjFo.
The GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) and the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) are two compact travel routers from the same product line, aimed at users who need portable, secure network access for travel, remote work, or temporary deployments. They share a similar physical footprint, OpenWrt based software environment, USB powered design, and the ability to convert a single wired or wireless uplink into a private network for multiple client devices. The comparison between them is relevant because the price difference is relatively modest, yet they are based on different wireless generations and hardware platforms. As a result, prospective buyers and existing Beryl AX users may reasonably question whether the newer Beryl 7 represents a meaningful upgrade, or whether the earlier model remains sufficient for most travel focused networking requirements.
|
Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router |
Gl.iNet Beryl AX Travel Router |
||
| Buy From Gl.iNet
|
Buy From Amazon
|
Buy From Gl.iNet
|
Buy From Amazon
|
The GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) is based on the WiFi 6 standard, supporting dual band operation across 2.4GHz and 5GHz with a combined theoretical maximum of 3000Mbps, rated at 574Mbps on 2.4GHz and 2402Mbps on 5GHz. The GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) moves to WiFi 7 and increases the combined theoretical bandwidth to 3600Mbps, rated at 688Mbps on 2.4GHz and 2882Mbps on 5GHz. Both devices operate on 2 bands only, as the Beryl 7 does not include 6GHz support, meaning it does not use the additional spectrum sometimes associated with WiFi 7 implementations.
The practical distinction between WiFi 6 and WiFi 7 in this comparison lies less in raw peak numbers and more in protocol efficiency and connection handling. WiFi 7 introduces Multi Link Operation, allowing compatible client devices to connect across multiple bands simultaneously rather than selecting a single band. In supported environments, this can improve throughput consistency and reduce latency under load. However, the benefit depends on the presence of WiFi 7 capable client hardware. Devices limited to WiFi 6 or earlier will connect using backward compatible standards, reducing the generational advantage to incremental improvements in signal handling and overhead efficiency.
In real world travel scenarios such as hotel rooms, shared apartments, or temporary office spaces, both routers provide sufficient bandwidth for streaming, browsing, cloud access, and moderate file transfers across multiple devices.
The Beryl 7 offers higher theoretical wireless ceilings and additional aggregation capability for compatible hardware, while the Beryl AX provides established WiFi 6 performance that remains adequate for most sub 2.5Gb internet connections. The decision between them in wireless terms is therefore primarily influenced by client device compatibility and the value placed on higher theoretical throughput within a portable deployment context.
It is also worth noting that 6GHz WiFi support, while often associated with WiFi 7, currently has more limited regulatory and client adoption in parts of Europe compared to other regions. Even if a travel router in this class were to include 6GHz radios, many users in European markets would not consistently benefit from the wider 320MHz channels or expanded spectrum due to regional availability constraints and lower client device penetration. In practical terms, this reduces the immediate advantage of tri band WiFi 7 for a large portion of the target audience. Integrating 6GHz capability would also require more advanced RF design, revised antenna layout, higher power handling, and often a different class of processor platform, frequently moving toward higher tier Qualcomm solutions. That shift would increase component cost, thermal requirements, and overall retail pricing, placing the device in a materially different market segment than the current dual band Beryl models.
Both the GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) and the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) include 2 Ethernet ports that can be configured as WAN or LAN depending on deployment needs. The structural difference lies in port speed allocation. The Beryl AX provides 1 x 2.5G port and 1 x 1G port, while the Beryl 7 provides 2 x 2.5G ports. This distinction directly affects how multi-gigabit internet connections and high speed wired clients can be distributed within the local network.
On the Beryl AX, users must decide whether the 2.5G interface will function as WAN or LAN if both upstream and downstream multi gigabit throughput is required. If the 2.5G port is assigned to WAN for an internet connection above 1G, the remaining LAN port is limited to 1G for wired clients such as a NAS or workstation. In contrast, the Beryl 7 allows a multi gigabit WAN input and a separate 2.5G LAN output simultaneously. This removes the need to prioritize one side of the connection when operating in environments with faster than gigabit internet access.
In lower bandwidth scenarios, such as hotel or public WiFi uplinks that rarely exceed 1G, the practical difference may be minimal. However, in deployments involving fiber connections above 1G, local high speed storage, or internal data transfers over wired connections, the dual 2.5G configuration of the Beryl 7 provides greater flexibility. The distinction is therefore less about port quantity and more about simultaneous throughput capability when handling multi gigabit traffic on both WAN and LAN interfaces.
The GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) uses the MediaTek MT7981B dual core processor running at 1.3GHz per core, whereas the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) moves to a MediaTek quad core processor running at 2.0GHz per core. This is not simply an incremental clock speed increase, but a combination of higher per core frequency and a doubling of available cores. In practical routing workloads, additional cores allow parallel handling of encryption, NAT, firewall inspection, QoS rules, and multiple concurrent sessions. The higher clock speed per core also improves single threaded tasks such as certain VPN operations and packet inspection routines. As network traffic increases, particularly when VPN encryption is enabled, the scaling advantage of 4 cores at 2.0GHz becomes more relevant than raw wireless bandwidth alone.
Both devices include 512MB DDR4 memory, so runtime capacity for active services and simultaneous connections is comparable at a base level. The difference lies in onboard NAND flash storage. The Beryl AX provides 256MB of flash, while the Beryl 7 includes 512MB. For basic firmware and light package installation, 256MB is typically sufficient. However, users deploying additional OpenWrt packages, extended logging, container based services, or more complex VPN and DNS filtering configurations may benefit from the additional internal storage headroom on the Beryl 7. The larger flash capacity reduces the need to offload configuration or expand storage through external means.
Both routers feature a single USB 3.0 port for data connectivity, while the separate USB Type C port is dedicated to power input. This means there is only 1 usable USB interface for peripherals. External storage devices such as USB flash drives or portable SSDs can be connected for file sharing via Samba or WebDAV, effectively turning the router into a lightweight network storage node. However, using the USB port for storage prevents simultaneous use for USB tethering or a USB cellular dongle. In travel deployments where USB tethering to a smartphone or 4G or 5G modem is required, the port cannot be shared. As a result, internal flash capacity and USB role allocation may influence configuration decisions depending on whether the router is being used primarily for storage sharing, mobile broadband input, or wired WAN operation.
The hardware and wireless differences between the GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) and the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) translate into measurable differences in VPN throughput and concurrent device handling. The Beryl AX is rated for up to 300Mbps via WireGuard and up to 150Mbps via OpenVPN in client mode. The Beryl 7 increases those ceilings to 1100Mbps via WireGuard and 1000Mbps via OpenVPN DCO. These figures are dependent on network conditions and configuration, but the scaling difference reflects the impact of the stronger quad core 2.0GHz processor on encryption and packet processing workloads.
Client device capacity is also higher on the Beryl 7. The Beryl AX is positioned to support 70 plus connected devices, while the Beryl 7 is rated for 120 plus. In most travel scenarios, such as hotel rooms or short term rentals, both limits exceed realistic usage. However, in small office, lab, classroom, or event environments where a travel router may be used as a temporary gateway, the higher client handling ceiling provides additional headroom. The increase is less about encouraging high density deployments and more about ensuring stability when multiple devices are actively transferring data simultaneously.
Deployment flexibility also differs when combining wired, wireless, and VPN loads. On the Beryl AX, performance limitations are more likely to appear when multi gigabit WAN input, active VPN encryption, and numerous client sessions are all enabled concurrently. The Beryl 7, with dual 2.5G ports, higher wireless ceilings, and stronger CPU resources, is designed to sustain heavier mixed workloads before reaching saturation. In low bandwidth environments such as standard hotel WiFi, both units operate comfortably within their limits. The divergence becomes more apparent in high speed fiber connections, homelab testing, or sustained VPN dependent remote work scenarios.
The GL.iNet Beryl AX (GL-MT3000) and the GL.iNet Beryl 7 (GL-MT3600BE) occupy the same physical category and share a similar deployment philosophy, but they differ meaningfully in processing capability, wired configuration flexibility, wireless ceiling, and VPN throughput. The Beryl AX remains a WiFi 6 based travel router with 2.5G WAN support, stable OpenWrt integration, and sufficient CPU resources for encrypted traffic at moderate broadband speeds. For users operating within sub gigabit internet connections, running standard VPN client configurations, and connecting a typical number of personal devices, its limitations are unlikely to surface in normal travel use. It continues to provide a compact, USB powered solution for converting public or shared internet access into a private subnet.
The Beryl 7 expands on that foundation with WiFi 7 protocol support across 2.4GHz and 5GHz, Multi Link Operation, dual 2.5G Ethernet ports, higher VPN throughput ceilings, a stronger quad core 2.0GHz processor, and increased onboard flash storage. These upgrades primarily increase performance headroom rather than altering the use case itself. In environments involving faster than 1G internet connections, sustained encrypted traffic, heavier concurrent client activity, or mixed wired and wireless high throughput workloads, the Beryl 7 is less likely to encounter processing or port bottlenecks. The higher rated VPN performance, particularly with WireGuard and OpenVPN DCO, may also be relevant for remote workers whose encrypted tunnel speed is constrained by router hardware rather than the upstream connection.
It is also relevant that the Beryl 7 does not include 6GHz spectrum support, meaning it does not implement the full 3 band WiFi 7 feature set. Within the broader portfolio of GL.iNet, development is ongoing toward a 6GHz capable WiFi 7 travel platform, referenced as the Slate 7 Pro, which is expected no earlier than Q2 2026. As such, the Beryl 7 represents an incremental step forward within dual band travel routers rather than the final stage of WiFi 7 implementation in this segment. Buyers prioritizing immediate WiFi 7 support with stronger processing and dual 2.5G ports may find the Beryl 7 aligned with their requirements, while those satisfied with WiFi 6 performance and lower VPN ceilings may find the Beryl AX remains proportionate to its price and intended scope.
|
Gl.iNet Beryl 7 Travel Router |
Gl.iNet Beryl AX Travel Router |
||
| Buy From Gl.iNet
|
Buy From Amazon
|
Buy From Gl.iNet
|
Buy From Amazon
|
| PROs | CONs | PROs | CONs |
| + WiFi 7 and MLO
+ Dual 2.5G WAN/LAN + Better CPU + More Storage |
– More Expensive
– Lack of 6Ghz – Same RAM/Memory |
+ Cheaper
+ Lower Power Use + Same RAM/Memory + Same Software & Features |
– Lacks MLO
– Less Base Storage – Lower USB PD Support |
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Join Inner Circle Subscribe
This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below
Need Help?
Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry.
[contact-form-7]
TRY CHAT
Terms and Conditions
Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver
Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here
|
|
|
The Beelink ME Pro is a 2-bay NAS-style mini PC that aims to deliver a full home or small office storage setup in a much smaller chassis than most traditional 2-bay systems. It is sold in 2 main versions, based on the Intel N95 or Intel N150, and both ship with pre-attached LPDDR5 memory and a bundled NVMe SSD as the system drive. Storage expansion is a mix of 2 SATA bays for 2.5-inch or 3.5-inch drives, plus 3 internal M.2 NVMe slots (1 running at PCIe 3.0 x2 and 2 running at PCIe 3.0 x1), and networking includes 5GbE plus 2.5GbE alongside WiFi 6 and Bluetooth 5.4. This review is based on several weeks of use and a set of structured tests covering temperatures over extended uptime, noise in idle and active states, power draw across different drive and workload combinations, and storage and network performance over both HDD and NVMe, with additional notes on the system’s internal layout and the practical limitations that come from its compact design.
The Beelink ME Pro is a very compact 2-bay NAS-style mini PC that combines 2 SATA bays with 3 M.2 NVMe slots and multi-gig connectivity, aiming to deliver a small footprint system without dropping features that are often reserved for larger enclosures. It is sold in N95 and N150 versions, both with pre-attached LPDDR5 memory (12GB or 16GB) and a bundled system SSD, and its internal layout uses 1 PCIe 3.0 x2 NVMe slot plus 2 PCIe 3.0 x1 slots, with 5GbE plus 2.5GbE Ethernet, WiFi 6, USB-C 10Gbps (with video output), HDMI 4K60, and a barrel-powered 120W PSU. In testing over extended uptime, external chassis temperatures stayed broadly in the mid-30C range with the rear around 38C, HDDs sat around 34C to 36C with modest 4TB drives installed, and NVMe temperatures rose sharply if the base thermal panel was removed, indicating the thermal pads and chassis contact are part of the cooling design and leaving no practical clearance for NVMe heatsinks. Noise in the tested setup remained in the mid-30 dBA range both at idle and under mixed access, power draw ranged from around 15W to 16W with no drives installed, 18W to 19W with only NVMe, about 22W to 23W with HDDs and NVMe idle, and peaked around 41W to 42W under a combined heavy workload. Performance was consistent with the hardware layout: HDD RAID1 throughput landed around 250MB/s to 267MB/s and will not saturate 5GbE, while NVMe could saturate the 5GbE link and internal testing showed about 1.5GB/s to 1.6GB/s reads and 1.1GB/s to 1.2GB/s writes on the PCIe 3.0 x2 slot, with the PCIe 3.0 x1 slots closer to roughly 830MB/s reads and 640MB/s to 670MB/s writes; media server use handled 4 simultaneous high bitrate 4K playback streams with CPU usage in the teens using Jellyfin. The main drawbacks are tied to the compact design choices: the RAM is not upgradeable, the chassis and storage fitting are very tight during installation, fan control outside BIOS was not straightforward in early testing, the NVMe slots are mixed speed by design, and the CPU options are closely spaced, meaning the upgrade decision is often about the bundled memory and SSD tier as much as the processor. Official messaging also says hot swapping is not supported, yet it worked during testing in a RAID1 scenario, suggesting a support-position limitation rather than a strict hardware block.
DESIGN - 9/10
HARDWARE - 8/10PERFORMANCE - 8/10PRICE - 8/10VALUE - 8/10
8.2
PROS
Very compact footprint for a 2-bay NAS class system (166 x 121 x 112mm, metal chassis)2x SATA bays (2.5-inch or 3.5-inch) plus 3x M.2 NVMe slots in the same enclosureMulti-gig wired networking: 5GbE + 2.5GbE, plus WiFi 6 and Bluetooth 5.4Strong idle efficiency in testing with drives installed and idle (about 22W to 23W)Noise stayed in the mid-30 dBA range in the tested HDD and NVMe configurationNVMe performance is sufficient to saturate the 5GbE link, with the PCIe 3.0 x2 slot clearly faster than the x1 slotsChassis thermal design appears effective under typical always-on use, with external temps broadly in the mid-30C rangePractical service access features: magnetic rear cover, base access for M.2, stored tool in the base, reset and CLR CMOS available
CONS
RAM is fixed (no SO-DIMM), so memory cannot be upgraded after purchaseVery tight internal tolerances make drive and bracket insertion less forgiving during installation and changesMixed NVMe slot speeds (1x PCIe 3.0 x2 and 2x PCIe 3.0 x1) and no 10GbE option
| Where to Buy the Beelink ME Pro NAS: |
The ME Pro is built around an all-metal unibody chassis that prioritizes footprint over easy internal spacing. In physical terms it sits noticeably smaller than many mainstream 2-bay enclosures, and in my comparisons it looked roughly 20% to 25% smaller next to typical 2-bay units from brands like Synology and TerraMaster. The front panel styling leans into a speaker-like look, and it has been compared to a Marshall speaker design, which is likely intentional given the mesh and badge layout. Functionally, that front area is not a speaker, and the design choice is mostly about appearance and airflow rather than adding any front-facing audio hardware.
|
|
From a storage perspective, the ME Pro is a hybrid layout rather than a traditional “2-bay only” NAS. It supports 2 SATA bays for 2.5-inch or 3.5-inch drives, and Beelink positions it as supporting up to 30TB per SATA bay, giving a stated 60TB HDD ceiling. Alongside that, it has 3 internal M.2 NVMe slots with a stated 4TB per slot limit, which Beelink frames as up to 12TB of SSD capacity. Taken together, that is the basis for the commonly quoted 72TB maximum figure, although most buyers will treat that as an upper boundary rather than a typical real-world configuration due to drive cost and heat considerations.
|
|
The SATA bays are accessed from the rear by removing a magnetic cooling mesh cover, then sliding out the drive bracket assembly. The trays are screw-mounted rather than tool-less, and the manual specifies different screw types depending on whether you are installing 2.5-inch or 3.5-inch drives. In practice, it is possible to physically place a drive in a tray without fully fastening it, but the design clearly expects proper screw mounting for stability and vibration control. The device also includes silicone plugs intended to reduce vibration and protect the drives, and the overall bay system is designed to sit very flush once reassembled.
|
|
One unusual design detail is that each HDD tray includes a thermal pad intended to draw heat away from the drive’s underside. That is not common on many 2-bay systems, and it suggests Beelink is trying to compensate for the compact enclosure by using direct contact points for heat transfer. The tradeoff is that this design pushes the product toward precision fitting, and it aligns with the wider theme of the ME Pro being tightly engineered rather than roomy.
If you typically choose NAS hardware where drive swaps are quick and frequent, this approach will feel more like a compact appliance that expects occasional changes, not a platform designed around constant drive rotation.
|
|
The compact chassis also affects how storage installation feels in the hands. Because clearances are tight, inserting the drive bracket and getting everything seated can feel less smooth than on larger 2-bay boxes, even though it looks clean once it is in place. This tightness is likely part of how Beelink is managing airflow paths and vibration control in such a small enclosure, but it still means you have less margin for error during installation. Overall, the storage design is best described as space-efficient and deliberate, but it asks for patience during assembly and it rewards users who install drives once and leave the configuration largely unchanged.
|
|
The ME Pro is sold in 2 CPU variants, based on Intel’s N95 or N150, both 4-core and 4-thread chips with integrated graphics. In practical NAS terms, these CPUs sit in the low power mini PC category rather than the heavier desktop class, so the platform is designed around efficiency and compact integration rather than raw compute headroom. In your testing and general use, that design target showed up as stable day-to-day responsiveness for typical NAS tasks, plus enough iGPU capability for common media server workloads when paired with the right software stack.
|
|
Memory is integrated rather than socketed. The configurations pair the N95 with 12GB LPDDR5 4800MHz and the N150 with 16GB LPDDR5 4800MHz, and there is no user-accessible SO-DIMM slot to expand it later. In the context of a small NAS, this matters less for basic file serving and backups, but it becomes more relevant if the device is expected to run multiple containers, heavier indexing, or virtual machines. Because the memory is fixed at purchase, the CPU choice is also effectively tied to your long-term memory ceiling.
|
|
Internally, the platform is constrained by limited PCIe resources, which affects how the storage and networking are wired. In the review you noted the CPU platform has 9 lanes available, and the device uses a split approach across its internal components rather than giving every subsystem the same bandwidth. The NVMe area reflects this most clearly, with 1 slot operating at PCIe 3.0 x2 while the other slots operate at PCIe 3.0 x1, which makes slot choice part of performance planning for any workload that leans heavily on NVMe. This lane budgeting also helps explain why the system lands at 5GbE plus 2.5GbE rather than a single 10GbE port, since 10GbE would typically add pressure to an already tight allocation.
|
|
Controller choices are mixed rather than uniform, and you called that out as unusual. The 5GbE port uses a Realtek RTL8126 controller and the 2.5GbE port uses an Intel i226-V controller, which is not a common pairing in the same chassis. On the storage side, the SATA side is handled by an ASMedia ASM2116 controller, and in your notes you referenced it operating on a PCIe 3.0 x1 link, which is still sufficient for 2 SATA bays in most real-world use. These choices are relevant for OS compatibility and driver maturity, particularly if the unit is being used with NAS focused platforms rather than the included Windows 11 installation.
|
|
Cooling is one of the main internal design decisions that enables the smaller enclosure. Instead of a traditional rear fan placed at the drive backplane, the system uses a CPU fan working with a vapor chamber arrangement, and airflow is routed so that it also passes over other internal heat sources rather than treating the CPU as a separate cooling zone. In your thermal testing, you observed that the front panel area ran warmer than the rest of the chassis due to the WiFi hardware placement, and you also saw a noticeable rise in NVMe temperatures when the base thermal panel was removed, which supports the idea that the chassis panels and pads are intended to be part of the heat management system. Power is delivered via a barrel connector using a 120W external PSU, which provides headroom for spin-up and load, but it also means this is not a USB-C powered design.
|
|
Up front, the ME Pro keeps things simple: a power button and a single front-mounted USB port for quick access. This suits the NAS-first intent, where most interaction is remote, but it also sets expectations for local use. If you plan to attach multiple peripherals directly to the unit, you are quickly pushed toward using a hub or relying on network-based management rather than treating it like a conventional mini PC with generous front I/O.
|
|
Most connectivity is placed at the rear and along the base section of the chassis, which also helps keep cables routed in one direction when the unit is placed on a desk or shelf. Wired networking is split across 2 Ethernet ports, a 5GbE port and a 2.5GbE port, and the unit also includes WiFi 6 plus Bluetooth 5.4. That mix allows both a standard single-cable setup and more flexible layouts such as separating traffic across the 2 wired links, or keeping WiFi available for temporary placement, troubleshooting, or scenarios where pulling Ethernet is not straightforward.
|
|
For general external connectivity, the ME Pro includes a USB-C port rated at 10Gbps for data and it supports video output, but it is not used for power input. Power is delivered through a barrel connector and the unit ships with a 120W external PSU, which provides comfortable headroom and removes any questions around USB-C PD negotiation. Alongside USB-C, it includes 1 USB 3.2 port rated at 10Gbps and 2 USB 2.0 ports at 480Mbps, which covers basic keyboard, mouse, UPS signalling, or low bandwidth accessories, but it is still a small selection compared with many mini PCs.
|
|
For local display and basic audio, there is 1 HDMI output rated up to 4K 60Hz and a 3.5mm audio jack. The manual also calls out a reset hole and a CLR CMOS function, which is useful context for users who intend to experiment with different operating systems, boot media, or BIOS settings, since recovery options are clearly exposed rather than being hidden inside the chassis. Overall, the port selection feels intentionally weighted toward networking and core connectivity, with enough display and USB support for setup and troubleshooting, but not a layout aimed at heavy local peripheral use.
Testing was done over several weeks of general use and targeted measurements, with a focus on temperatures, noise, power draw, and storage and network throughput. The typical configuration used for the core measurements included 2 SATA HDDs and 3 installed NVMe drives, with the system left running for extended periods and accessed regularly throughout the day. In addition to network file transfers, I also checked internal storage performance directly over SSH to separate storage limits from network limits.
On thermals, external chassis temperatures after a 24-hour period of operation with regular hourly access sat around 34C to 35C across most sides. The base area was a little warmer at roughly 34C to 38C, and the rear section around the motherboard and vapor chamber area was around 38C. The installed HDDs sat around 34C to 36C in that same period, using 4TB IronWolf drives, so not high power enterprise class media. The front panel area peaked higher than the rest of the enclosure, which aligned with the internal placement of the WiFi hardware near the front of the chassis.
|
|
|
|
The NVMe area showed the clearest example of how much the chassis panels and pads matter. With the base thermal panel in place, the panel itself sat around 36C over the same extended uptime. When that panel was removed, temperatures on the NVMe drives rose noticeably, with the PCIe 3.0 x2 slot drive reaching around 45C to 46C and the PCIe 3.0 x1 slot drives sitting around 38C to 41C. The difference suggested that the base panel and thermal pad contact are doing meaningful work as part of the heat path, and it also reinforces that there is no practical clearance for NVMe heatsinks in this chassis.
|
|
Noise levels were measured in a modest drive configuration, and they stayed in the mid-30 dBA range in the test environment. With the HDDs idle and the system otherwise sitting in standby, noise came in around 36 dBA to 37 dBA. With both HDDs being accessed simultaneously and NVMe activity occurring, it sat around 35 dBA to 38 dBA. The system uses a compact fan approach tied to the CPU cooling path, and one limitation I ran into is that I did not find a straightforward way to control the fan outside the BIOS during early testing, including attempts via SSH, which reduces fine tuning options for users who want tighter acoustics control.
|
|
Power consumption was tested in several stages to isolate the impact of installed storage. With no HDDs or NVMe installed and the system powered on, it drew around 15W to 16W. With 3 NVMe installed and no HDDs, it rose to around 18W to 19W. With 2 HDDs and 3 NVMe installed but all media idle, it sat around 22W to 23W.
Under a heavy combined workload with HDD and NVMe activity plus the CPU at full utilization, power draw reached around 41W to 42W, which reflects a worst case state rather than typical idle or light service operation.
For throughput, 2 HDDs in a RAID1 style setup were able to deliver around 250 MB/s to 267 MB/s, which is consistent with what you would expect from 2-bay HDD performance and means the HDD side will not saturate a 5GbE link.
NVMe storage over the 5GbE connection was able to reach full saturation of the network link in testing, so the network became the limiting factor rather than the SSD. Internal NVMe testing over SSH showed the expected split between slots, with the PCIe 3.0 x2 slot delivering roughly 1.5 GB/s to 1.6 GB/s reads and 1.1 GB/s to 1.2 GB/s writes, while the PCIe 3.0 x1 slots delivered around 830 MB/s to 835 MB/s reads and roughly 640 MB/s to 670 MB/s writes with more variability.
On media server use, 4 simultaneous high bitrate 4K playback streams ran with CPU usage in the teens, using Jellyfin. One extra operational note from testing is that while official messaging indicates hot swapping is not supported, I was able to remove and replace a drive in a RAID1 environment without powering down and continue the rebuild process, which suggests the limitation may be a support stance rather than an absolute hardware block.
The ME Pro’s main practical strengths are the space-efficient chassis, the combination of 2 SATA bays with 3 internal NVMe slots, and a connectivity set that includes 5GbE plus 2.5GbE and WiFi 6. In measured testing it delivered controlled external temperatures under typical always-on use, mid-30 dBA noise levels in the tested configuration, and power draw that stayed in the low-20W range at idle with drives installed, rising into the low-40W range under a full combined workload. Storage performance matched the internal design limits: HDD throughput was solid but not enough to saturate 5GbE, while NVMe performance split clearly between the PCIe 3.0 x2 slot and the PCIe 3.0 x1 slots, with the faster NVMe slot capable of saturating the 5GbE link in network transfers.
The main limitations are tied to the same compact, integrated approach that makes it unusual. Memory is fixed at purchase with no SO-DIMM upgrade path, NVMe cooling relies on chassis contact and leaves no clearance for heatsinks, and the lane allocation results in mixed NVMe slot speeds rather than uniform bandwidth across all 3 slots. The launch CPU options also remain close enough that the decision is often as much about bundled memory and SSD tier as it is about a clear performance tier shift. For buyers who want a small, always-on NAS with mixed SATA and NVMe storage, multi-gig networking, and reasonable thermals, noise, and power characteristics, the ME Pro aligns with that goal, but it is less suitable for users who expect frequent hardware changes, want expandability in RAM, or prefer a more conventional 10GbE-first network design.
| PROs of the Beelink ME Pro NAS | CONs of the Beelink ME Pro NAS |
|
|
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Join Inner Circle Subscribe
This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below
Need Help?
Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry.
[contact-form-7]
TRY CHAT
Terms and Conditions
Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver
Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here
|
|
|
When setting up a NAS, one of the most important and long-lasting decisions you’ll make is choosing the right RAID level. This choice directly impacts how much protection you have against drive failures, how much usable storage space you retain, and how long rebuilds will take when things go wrong. Among the most debated options are RAID 5 and RAID 6, both of which use parity for data protection but differ in how much risk they can tolerate. RAID 5 offers single-drive failure protection with better capacity efficiency, while RAID 6 provides dual-drive fault tolerance at the cost of more storage overhead and longer rebuild times. It’s worth noting that although you can graduate a RAID 5 into a RAID 6 later if your needs change, this is a slow and resource-heavy process. On the other hand, RAID 6 cannot be reversed back into RAID 5, so it’s a decision that requires careful planning from the outset. The balance of speed, safety, capacity, and risk tolerance will determine which configuration is truly best for your setup.
IMPORTANT – It is essential to understand that RAID, whether RAID 5 or RAID 6, should never be considered a true backup solution. RAID protects against drive failures, but it cannot safeguard you from accidental deletion, malware, hardware faults beyond the disks, or disasters like fire and theft.
If you are looking for simplicity, RAID 5 will usually give you the best balance of speed, storage efficiency, and cost, but it comes with higher risk. RAID 6 is slower to rebuild, consumes more usable capacity, and involves heavier parity calculations, but it provides a much stronger safety net against drive failures. For smaller arrays with modest drive sizes, RAID 5 can be entirely sufficient, especially when paired with reliable backups. However, as drive capacities continue to grow and rebuild times stretch into days, RAID 6 becomes more attractive because it can withstand the failure of two drives without losing the array. In essence, RAID 5 is about maximizing space and performance with a moderate level of safety, while RAID 6 is about maximizing resilience and peace of mind at the expense of capacity and speed. Choosing between them comes down to how valuable your data is, how large your drives are, and how much risk you are willing to tolerate during rebuild windows.
For systems with fewer than 8 bays, RAID 5 will usually be sufficient unless you are running especially large-capacity drives or operating at a business scale where data loss cannot be tolerated. Once you reach 8 bays or higher, RAID 6 should be seriously considered, as the chances of a second drive failing during a rebuild increase along with the overall storage pool size and the scale of potential loss. At 12 bays and beyond, RAID 6 is effectively mandatory, as relying on RAID 5 at that scale means gambling with too many points of failure and too much at stake if something goes wrong.
| RAID 5 | RAID 6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Pros | Higher usable capacity (only 1 drive lost to parity) | Dual-drive failure protection |
| Faster rebuild times | Much lower risk of catastrophic rebuild failure | |
| Lower cost per TB | Strong choice for very large drives (10TB+) | |
| Less parity overhead (better write speeds) | Safer for arrays with 6+ disks | |
| Widely supported and simple to manage | More reliable for mission-critical or archival data | |
| Cons | Vulnerable if a second drive fails during rebuild | Slower rebuild times |
| Higher risk of data loss with large drives | Higher cost per TB (2 drives lost to parity) | |
| Less safe for arrays over 6–8 disks | More computational overhead, slightly slower writes |
The initial creation of a RAID array, sometimes called synchronization or initialization, is one of the first differences you’ll notice between RAID 5 and RAID 6. A RAID 5 setup generally completes its initial build faster because it only has to calculate and assign a single parity block across the drives. RAID 6, by contrast, has to generate and distribute two independent parity values on every stripe, which increases the workload on the system. This means that on a fresh setup, RAID 6 will take longer to complete the synchronization process before the array is fully operational, though this is usually a one-time inconvenience at the beginning of deployment. For home and small office setups, this extra build time might not matter too much, but in larger systems with many terabytes of data, it can mean several hours or even days of extra initialization work compared with RAID 5.
The difference becomes more significant when a drive fails and a rebuild is needed. In RAID 5, the system only needs to reconstruct the missing data using the surviving disks and a single parity calculation, which usually makes recovery noticeably faster. RAID 6, however, must perform double parity calculations and restore both sets of parity information onto the replacement drive, extending the recovery window. On large modern HDDs where rebuilds can take dozens of hours, or sometimes multiple days, this extra time becomes a major factor. The trade-off is that RAID 6 offers much stronger resilience while this rebuild is in progress, because the system can continue to operate and survive even if another disk fails during the process. In other words, RAID 5 rebuilds faster but carries more risk, while RAID 6 rebuilds slower but provides a crucial safety margin during the vulnerable degraded state.
Here is a recent video (using the UniFi server platform) that talks about RAID 5/6 vs RAID 10 build times and parity from 777 or 404:
The most important factor when comparing RAID 5 and RAID 6 is how well they protect data when drives fail. RAID 5 uses single parity, meaning the system can survive one drive failure without losing data. However, if a second drive fails during the rebuild, the entire array is lost. RAID 6 adds dual parity, which allows the system to tolerate the loss of two drives simultaneously. This extra layer of protection is especially valuable during rebuild windows, which can take many hours or days on modern high-capacity HDDs. In practice, RAID 6 dramatically reduces the risk of catastrophic data loss, at the expense of slower rebuilds and less usable capacity. A subtle but often overlooked vulnerability is the issue of batch manufacturing. Many users buy multiple drives at once, often from the same supplier, meaning the disks may come from the same production batch. If there was a hidden flaw introduced during manufacturing, it is possible that more than one disk could develop problems around the same time. With RAID 5, this creates a dangerous scenario: a second disk failure during a rebuild results in complete data loss. RAID 6 provides a safety margin against these correlated failures by protecting the array even if two drives fail close together in time. Another major risk comes from unrecoverable read errors (UREs) that can occur during rebuilds. Because every sector of every remaining drive must be read to restore the lost disk, the chance of encountering a read error rises significantly with larger drives. In RAID 5, a single URE during rebuild can corrupt the recovery process, whereas RAID 6 has an additional layer of parity to compensate, making it much more reliable during rebuilds. This is especially important in arrays of 8 or more drives, where the probability of encountering at least one problematic sector grows. For users with large arrays or very high-capacity drives, RAID 6’s extra fault tolerance is the difference between a successful rebuild and complete data loss.
One of the clearest differences between RAID 5 and RAID 6 lies in how much usable capacity you end up with. RAID 5 only sacrifices the equivalent of a single drive’s worth of storage to parity, which makes it the more space-efficient option. In a six-bay system with 10TB drives, RAID 5 would deliver 50TB of usable storage, while RAID 6 would only provide 40TB. That 10TB difference can be substantial when you are working with large libraries of data such as media collections, surveillance archives, or backups. For users trying to maximize every terabyte of their investment, RAID 5 makes the most efficient use of available space. However, RAID 6’s higher storage overhead translates directly into a higher effective cost per terabyte. Since two drives are always reserved for parity, the total usable space is reduced, and the price you pay for storage per TB goes up. For small home users, this may feel like wasted potential, but the trade-off is the additional layer of fault tolerance. In environments where the cost of downtime or data loss far outweighs the cost of an extra disk, RAID 6 provides stronger long-term value despite the higher price per terabyte. Ultimately, the decision comes down to whether you are more concerned with minimizing cost and maximizing space, or ensuring redundancy and peace of mind.
Some users prefer to run RAID 5 with a dedicated hot spare drive rather than choosing RAID 6 outright. In this setup, a single extra disk sits idle until one of the active drives fails, at which point the spare is automatically used for the rebuild. This reduces the amount of time the array spends in a degraded and vulnerable state, since the rebuild begins immediately without waiting for a replacement disk to be manually installed. While this approach still leaves you with only single-drive fault tolerance, it can feel like a middle ground between RAID 5 and RAID 6. In terms of capacity, RAID 5 with a hot spare sacrifices the same amount of usable space as RAID 6, but it does not provide the same dual-drive protection. For arrays of six to eight drives, this compromise can make sense if you prioritize capacity efficiency and faster automated recovery, but once you move into larger-scale storage systems, RAID 6 remains the safer and more resilient option.
When choosing between RAID 5 and RAID 6, the decision comes down to weighing efficiency against resilience. RAID 5 is faster to rebuild, provides more usable storage, and costs less per terabyte, which makes it well suited to smaller NAS setups or users who prioritize capacity and speed. RAID 6, on the other hand, offers stronger protection against drive failures, making it far more reliable for larger arrays and higher-capacity drives where rebuild times are long and risks multiply. The general consensus is that RAID 5 can still be a smart choice for arrays under eight bays, but RAID 6 becomes the clear recommendation for systems of eight drives or more, and an essential requirement at twelve drives and beyond. Above all else, it is critical to remember that RAID is not a backup. Neither RAID 5 nor RAID 6 will protect you against accidental deletion, ransomware, hardware faults beyond the disks, or disasters such as fire or theft. RAID is a safety net that improves availability, but it must always be paired with a proper backup strategy if your data truly matters.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Join Inner Circle Subscribe
This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below
Need Help?
Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry.
[contact-form-7]
TRY CHAT
Terms and Conditions
Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver
Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here
|
|
|
While using a computer, having an eye on your performance is essential. Being conscious of your performance potentially helps you avoid problems connected with overload. So, in this guide, we will explore how to show the Windows 11 Performance Overlay.
Windows 11 Performance Overlay is a tool built into the computer for real-time system performance monitoring. This utility shows different metrics essential in understanding how your computer handles a range of tasks.
Some common metrics to find in Performance Overlay include the following:
There are many advantages to viewing or using the Performance Overlay. However, at the top of the list is that you get enough information to help you troubleshoot issues that result in lags or crashes on your computer.
Because overlay is often transparent, it does not obstruct your workflow or gameplay.
Xbox Game Bar is built into Windows 10 and 11. It is essentially a customizable gaming overlay. This utility gives access to essential functionalities without you leaving the game. You may show this performance overlay by following the steps below.
1. Press Windows + G to open the Game bar.
2. Click the Performance tab to open performance options.
3. Select your Performance options menu.
4. Tick the checkboxes for any information you want to display.
5. Return to the Performance window and click the Pin icon.
6. Latsly, press the Windows + G keys to hide your Game Bar.
On Windows 11, the Settings app allows you to tweak app and operating system functions. You may access the Windows Overlay option for your game bar from Settings.
1. Press Windows + I to open the Settings app.
2. On the left pane, click Gaming; on the right, click Game Bar.
3. Toggle the switch to Allow your controller to open Game Bar.
4. Now, you can use a gaming controller to open the game bar and configure Performance Overlay, as shown in the first solution.
All your performance data is shown in the Task Manager. This utility also has an Always on top feature that permanently displays your performance on the screen.
1. Press the Ctrl + Shift + Esc keys to open the Task Manager.
2. Click Settings at the bottom left, then under the Windows Management category, tick Always on top.
3. Click the Performance tab, then double-click CPU for a summary view of your performance.
Your performance is displayed at all times in the Task Manager. Simply launch it by pressing Ctrl + Shift + Esc, then click on the Performance tab on the left pane.
If you have read through this guide, you should now be able to view your performance on the operating system easily. Showing performance is one of the better settings for gaming on Windows 11.
Do you have further questions on Performance Overlay? Let us know in the comment section below.
No, they are not, even though they are related. The FPS counter only shows the number of frames rendered per second, while the Performance Overlay offers a wide range of performance metrics.
Enabling this functionality has a negligible impact on performance. In most computers, you will barely notice a difference.
The post How to Show Windows 11 Performance Overlay appeared first on Next of Windows.
Connexion