Opinions on NetCDF vs HDF5 for storing scientific data?
Anyone out there have enough experience w/ NetCDF and HDF5 to give some pluses / minuses about them as a way of storing scientific data?
I've used HDF5 and would like to read/write via Java but the interface is essentially a wrapper around the C libraries, which I have found confusing, so NetCDF seems intriguing but I know almost nothing about it.
edit: my application is "only" for datalogging, so that I get a file that has a self-describing format. Important features for me are being able to add arbitrary metadata, having fast write access for appending to byte arrays, and having single-writer / multiple-reader concurrency (strongly preferred but not a must-have. NetCDF docs say they have SWMR but don't say whether they support any mechanism for ensuring that two writers can't open the same file at once with disastrous results). I like the hierarchical aspect of HDF5 (in particular I love the directed-acyclic-graph hierarchy, much more flexible than a "regular" filesystem-like hierarchy), am reading the NetCDF docs now... if it only allows one dataset per file then it probably won't work for me. :(
update — looks like NetCDF-Java reads from netCDF-4 files but only writes from netCDF-3 files which don't support hierarchical groups. darn.
update 2009-Jul-14: I am starting to get really upset with HDF5 in Java. The library available isn't that great and it has some major stumbling blocks that have to do with Java's abstraction layers (compound data types). A great file format for C but looks like I just lose. >:(
Answer
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.