tags:

views:

904

answers:

3
+5  Q: 

netcdf vs. hdf5?

+2  A: 

Try writing some small sample application in each, and compare the experience. If future scalability of your code to parallel execution (via MPI or the like) is important to you, I know that HDF has a parallel implementation, which people are constantly working to improve. I'm not sure about NetCDF.

Novelocrat
+3  A: 

I'll have to admit using HDF5 is very much easier in the long run. It's not hard to get simple data structures into NetCDF format, but manipulating them down the road is kind of a pain.

The "H" in HDF5 stands for "heirarchical", which translated (for me anyway) into a REALLY easy way to manipulate data, by just moving nodes around and referencing nodes from other places.

Can I ask what kind of project this is? I use these both for a lot of HPC scientific modeling tasks. Can I assume you're doing the same? If so, the trend I'm seeing is people moving to HDF5, but that might be different in your particular domain.

However you end up going, best of luck!

Mike
+3  A: 

I strongly suggest you HDF5 instead of NetCDF. NetCDF is flat, and it gets very dirty after a while if you are not able to classify stuff. Of course classification is also a matter of debate, but at least you have this flexibility.

We performed an accurate evaluation of HDF5 vs. NetCDF when I wrote Q5Cost, and the final result was for HDF5 hands down.

Stefano Borini