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

We have web service that has thousands of winforms client in as many PCs. The PCs have no connection with DB backend, all access is via the web service. So we decided to develop a central logging server that listens on a UDP port and all the clients sends an xml error log packet (using log4net UDP appender) that gets dumped to a DB table upon received. Since we don't really care if a few error logs are missed and with thousands of client it is fast with a dedicated logging service not loading the main web service.

其他回答

在某些情况下,如果丢失一些数据不会完全破坏正在传输的数据,则应该使用UDP而不是TCP。它的很多应用都是在实时应用中,比如游戏(例如FPS,你不需要知道每个玩家在特定时间的位置,如果你丢失了一些数据包,新的数据会正确地告诉你玩家在哪里),以及实时视频流(一个损坏的帧不会破坏观看体验)。

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。

我们知道UDP是一种无连接协议,的确如此

适用于需要简单请求-响应通信的流程。 适用于有内部流动、误差控制的工艺 适用于广泛铸造和多播

具体的例子:

用于SNMP 用于RIP等路由更新协议

There are already many good answers here, but I would like to add one very important factor as well as a summary. UDP can achieve a much higher throughput with the correct tuning because it does not employ congestion control. Congestion control in TCP is very very important. It controls the rate and throughput of the connection in order to minimize network congestion by trying to estimate the current capacity of the connection. Even when packets are sent over very reliable links, such as in the core network, routers have limited size buffers. These buffers fill up to their capacity and packets are then dropped, and TCP notices this drop through the lack of a received acknowledgement, thereby throttling the speed of the connection to the estimation of the capacity. TCP also employs something called slow start, but the throughput (actually the congestion window) is slowly increased until packets are dropped, and is then lowered and slowly increased again until packets are dropped etc. This causes the TCP throughput to fluctuate. You can see this clearly when you download a large file.

因为UDP没有使用拥塞控制,它可以更快,并且经历更少的延迟,因为它不会寻求最大化缓冲区直到丢弃点,也就是说,UDP数据包在缓冲区中花费的时间更少,到达那里的速度更快,延迟更少。由于UDP不采用拥塞控制,但TCP采用拥塞控制,因此它可以从TCP中占用生成UDP流的容量。

UDP仍然容易受到拥塞和数据包丢失的影响,所以你的应用程序必须准备好以某种方式处理这些问题,可能使用重传或错误纠正代码。

结果是UDP可以:

Achieve higher throughput than TCP as long as the network drop rate is within limits that the application can handle. Deliver packets faster than TCP with less delay. Setup connections faster as there are no initial handshake to setup the connection Transmit multicast packets, whereas TCP have to use multiple connections. Transmit fixed size packets, whereas TCP transmit data in segments. If you transfer a UDP packet of 300 Bytes, you will receive 300 Bytes at the other end. With TCP, you may feed the sending socket 300 Bytes, but the receiver only reads 100 Bytes, and you have to figure out somehow that there are 200 more Bytes on the way. This is important if your application transmit fixed size messages, rather than a stream of bytes.

总之,UDP可以用于TCP可以使用的任何类型的应用程序,只要您还实现了适当的重传输机制。UDP可以非常快,有更少的延迟,在连接的基础上不受拥塞的影响,传输固定大小的数据报,并可用于组播。

We have web service that has thousands of winforms client in as many PCs. The PCs have no connection with DB backend, all access is via the web service. So we decided to develop a central logging server that listens on a UDP port and all the clients sends an xml error log packet (using log4net UDP appender) that gets dumped to a DB table upon received. Since we don't really care if a few error logs are missed and with thousands of client it is fast with a dedicated logging service not loading the main web service.