I work on a product that supports both UDP (IP) and TCP/IP communication between client and server. It started out with IPX over 15 years ago with IP support added 13 years ago. We added TCP/IP support 3 or 4 years ago. Wild guess coming up: The UDP to TCP code ratio is probably about 80/20. The product is a database server, so reliability is critical. We have to handle all of the issues imposed by UDP (packet loss, packet doubling, packet order, etc.) already mentioned in other answers. There are rarely any problems, but they do sometimes occur and so must be handled. The benefit to supporting UDP is that we are able to customize it a bit to our own usage and tweak a bit more performance out of it.

Every network is going to be different, but the UDP communication protocol is generally a little bit faster for us. The skeptical reader will rightly question whether we implemented everything correctly. Plus, what can you expect from a guy with a 2 digit rep? Nonetheless, I just now ran a test out of curiosity. The test read 1 million records (select * from sometable). I set the number of records to return with each individual client request to be 1, 10, and then 100 (three test runs with each protocol). The server was only two hops away over a 100Mbit LAN. The numbers seemed to agree with what others have found in the past (UDP is about 5% faster in most situations). The total times in milliseconds were as follows for this particular test:

1记录 IP: 390760 ms TCP: 416,903毫秒 10个记录 IP: 91,707 ms TCP: 95,662毫秒 100条记录 IP: 29,664 ms TCP: 30,968毫秒

IP和TCP传输的数据总量大致相同。我们在UDP通信方面有额外的开销，因为我们拥有一些与TCP/IP“免费”相同的东西(校验和，序列号等)。例如，Wireshark显示对下一组记录的请求在UDP中是80字节，在TCP中是84字节。

如果TCP数据包丢失，将重新发送。这对于依赖于以特定顺序实时处理数据的应用程序来说并不方便。

例如视频流，特别是VoIP(例如Skype)。然而，在这些情况下，一个掉落的包并不是什么大问题:我们的感官并不完美，所以我们甚至可能不会注意到。这就是为什么这些类型的应用程序使用UDP而不是TCP。

在某些情况下，保证数据包的到达并不重要，因此使用UDP是可以的。在其他情况下，UDP比TCP更可取。

你想要使用UDP而不是TCP的一个独特情况是你在另一个协议(例如隧道，虚拟网络等)上建立TCP隧道。如果您在TCP上建立隧道，则每个TCP的拥塞控制将相互干扰。因此，人们通常更喜欢在UDP(或其他无状态协议)上传输TCP。参见TechRepublic文章:理解TCP Over TCP: TCP隧道对端到端吞吐量和延迟的影响。

UDP can be used when an app cares more about "real-time" data instead of exact data replication. For example, VOIP can use UDP and the app will worry about re-ordering packets, but in the end VOIP doesn't need every single packet, but more importantly needs a continuous flow of many of them. Maybe you here a "glitch" in the voice quality, but the main purpose is that you get the message and not that it is recreated perfectly on the other side. UDP is also used in situations where the expense of creating a connection and syncing with TCP outweighs the payload. DNS queries are a perfect example. One packet out, one packet back, per query. If using TCP this would be much more intensive. If you dont' get the DNS response back, you just retry.

UDP是完美的VoIP地址，其中数据包必须发送不考虑其可靠性… 视频聊天是UDP的一个例子(你可以在任何视频聊天期间通过wireshark网络捕获来检查它)。 而且TCP不能与DNS和SNMP协议一起使用。 UDP没有任何开销，而TCP有很多开销

UDP具有较低的开销，如前所述，它对视频和音频等流媒体很好，最好只是丢失一个数据包，然后尝试重新发送和追赶。

TCP传输没有保证，你只是被告知套接字是否断开，或者数据是否没有到达。否则它会在到达目的地的时候到达目的地。

A big thing that people forget is that udp is packet based, and tcp is bytestream based, there is no guarantee that the "tcp packet" you sent is the packet that shows up on the other end, it can be dissected into as many packets as the routers and stacks desire. So your software has the additional overhead of parsing bytes back into usable chunks of data, that can take a fair amount of overhead. UDP can be out of order so you have to number your packets or use some other mechanism to re-order them if you care to do so. But if you get that udp packet it arrives with all the same bytes in the same order as it left, no changes. So the term udp packet makes sense but tcp packet doesnt necessarily. TCP has its own re-try and ordering mechanism that is hidden from your application, you can re-invent that with UDP to tailor it to your needs.

UDP更容易在两端编写代码，基本上是因为你不需要建立和维护点到点连接。我的问题是在什么情况下你需要TCP开销?如果你走捷径，比如假设接收到的tcp“数据包”是发送的完整数据包，你会更好吗?(如果你费心检查长度/内容，你可能会扔掉两个包)