Hello Dave,
I came across your question and it's true what you have stated. However, I tried it on a Linux machine too, and it shows the sizes similar to windows, i.e. around 110 MB and 1200 MB for the respective methods.
- Upon a little prodding, I went on to change the "DeflateLevel" to 0, which turns off the compression, and the sizes become identical for both the methods.
- With the above insight the reason for the behaviour could be due to writing in blocks. In the second file (test2.nc), you're writing the data in blocks of 100. This could potentially affect the compression efficiency. When you write data in smaller blocks, the compression algorithm has less context to efficiently compress the data compared to writing in one large block. This can result in larger file sizes because the algorithm cannot leverage patterns in the data over larger spans.
PS - However, the size shouldn't have increased from the original, i.e. with 0 DeflateLevel.
Hope it gives some insight.
Thanks
