因为TCP保证数据包的传递,因此可以被认为是“可靠的”,而UDP不保证任何东西,数据包可能会丢失。在应用程序中使用UDP而不是TCP流传输数据的优势是什么?在什么情况下UDP是更好的选择,为什么?

我假设UDP更快,因为它没有创建和维护流的开销,但如果一些数据从未到达目的地,这不是无关紧要的吗?


当前回答

UDP在需要速度时使用,如果数据包不需要,则使用精度,而TCP在需要精度时使用。

UDP通常比较难,因为你必须以一种不依赖于数据包准确性的方式来编写程序。

其他回答

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.

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。

当TCP可以工作时,我有点不情愿建议使用UDP。问题是,如果TCP由于某种原因不能工作,因为连接太延迟或拥塞,将应用程序更改为使用UDP不太可能有帮助。一个坏的连接对UDP也不好。TCP在减少拥塞方面已经做得很好了。

我能想到的唯一需要UDP的情况是广播协议。在应用程序涉及两个已知主机的情况下,UDP可能只会提供边际的性能优势,而代码复杂性的成本则会大幅增加。

UDP确实有更少的开销,适合做一些事情,比如流式实时数据,如音频或视频,或者在任何情况下,如果数据丢失是ok的。

UDP是一种无连接协议,用于SNMP和DNS等协议,在这些协议中,无序到达的数据包是可以接受的,数据包的即时传输很重要。

在SNMP中使用它是因为网络管理通常必须在网络处于压力状态时进行,即当可靠的、拥塞控制的数据传输难以实现时。

它用于DNS,因为它不涉及连接建立,从而避免了连接建立延迟。

干杯