Gluesync vs Fivetran’s HVR: the superior IBM i data integration solution

When it comes to real-time data integration on IBM i systems (formerly AS/400), businesses need a platform that delivers top-tier performance, low resource consumption, and scalable capabilities. MOLO17’s Gluesync and Fivetran’s HVR are prominent players in this field.

While both solutions enable data replication and synchronization for IBM i systems, Gluesync offers significant advantages that make it the preferred choice for enterprises looking to optimize their IBM i infrastructure.

This article examines the key differences between Gluesync and HVR, highlighting why MOLO17’s solution outshines its competitor in terms of performance, resource impact, and scalability.

Resource impact: Gluesync’s ultra-low footprint vs. HVR’s heavy CPU usage

One of the primary challenges when integrating IBM i systems is managing resource consumption, particularly CPU usage and CPWs (Commercial Processing Workloads). A solution that minimizes resource impact is essential for maintaining system performance and controlling operational costs.

Fivetran’HVR: high CPU impact

Fivetran relies on the DISPLAY_JOURNAL SQL function to retrieve journal entries from IBM i systems. While functional, this approach can consume up to 40% of CPU resources during operation per connection. This high level of resource usage can significantly hinder the performance of mission-critical applications running on IBM i systems.

MOLO17’s Gluesync: minimal impact

In contrast, Gluesync by MOLO17 leverages native AS/400 commands to fetch journal entries directly. By avoiding the resource-hogging DISPLAY_JOURNAL function, Gluesync achieves an ultra-low CPU footprint, consuming only 5% CPU for less than 0.5 seconds to process 10,000 journal entries on a shared pool of 15 connections.

The Bottom Line

Gluesync minimizes resource consumption, ensuring that IBM i systems can continue to perform at their best. Fivetran, on the other hand, risks overburdening your system, leading to higher costs and reduced efficiency.

Scalability: Gluesync’s support for multiple journals

Many IBM i environments utilize multiple journals to manage data replication across different applications and tables. The ability to handle these journals effectively is crucial for scalability.

Fivetran’s HVR: Limited to One Journal

Fivetranis is restricted to handling one journal per configuration. This limitation forces businesses to create and manage multiple configurations for each journal, increasing complexity and administrative overhead.

MOLO17’s Gluesync: unlimited journal support

Gluesync, on the other hand, supports unlimited journals on IBM i systems. Businesses can configure and manage multiple journals within the same environment, streamlining the integration process and enabling seamless scalability.

The Bottom Line

Gluesync’s ability to handle multiple journals makes it ideal for enterprises with large-scale IBM i environments. Fivetran’s one-journal limitation adds unnecessary complexity and constrains scalability.

Native Integration: optimized for IBM i systems

IBM i systems have unique architecture and capabilities that require a platform specifically optimized for their environment.

Fivetran’s HVR: generic SQL-based approach

HVR uses SQL-based methods, such as DISPLAY_JOURNAL, to retrieve data. While effective in basic scenarios, this approach introduces overhead and fails to fully leverage the native features of IBM i systems.

MOLO17’s Gluesync: tailored for IBM i

Gluesync is designed specifically for IBM i systems, using native commands to interact directly with the journal subsystem. This approach ensures:

• Faster synchronization with minimal latency.
• Reduced overhead compared to SQL-based methods.
• Seamless integration with IBM i’s journaling system for reliable Change Data Capture (CDC).

The Bottom Line

Gluesync’s native integration with IBM i systems provides performance and reliability that Fivetran cannot match.

Performance benchmarks: real-world results

Benchmarking* Gluesync vs. HVR reveals the stark differences in their performance:

Metric	Gluesync	Fivetran’s HVR
CPU impact	5% for <1 second (10,000 entries)	up to 40% with DISPLAY_JOURNAL
Support for journals	unlimited	single journal only
Scalability	designed for large environments	limited by journaling restrictions
Data latency	ultra-low latency	higher latency due to SQL APIs overhead

*Benchmark and performance results for IBM i 7.5 systems with 25660 CPW.

Conclusion: why Gluesync is the superior choice

For businesses relying on IBM i systems, MOLO17’s Gluesync delivers a combination of performance, scalability, and efficiency that Fivetran’s HVR simply cannot match.

By choosing Gluesync, organizations can:

• minimize resource impact, ensuring their IBM i systems run at peak performance.
• scale effortlessly with support for multiple journals.
• leverage IBM i’s native capabilities for optimized data integration.

Ready to optimize your IBM i data integration?

Learn more about Gluesync for IBM i here.

Why Choose MOLO17’s Gluesync?

• Efficient resource usage: avoid the heavy CPU impact of SQL-based methods.
• Scalable architecture: unlimited journal support for large environments.
• Native integration: tailored for IBM i systems for superior performance.

Upgrade your IBM i integration with MOLO17’s Gluesync today!

Disclaimer: The logo of HVR used in this article is the property of the company itself. All rights to the logo are retained by the owner company itself and the use is strictly for illustrative purposes in the context of the blog post by MOLO17.