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

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。

其他回答

UDP的“不可靠性”是一种形式主义。传播并不能绝对保证。实际上,他们几乎总是能通过。它们只是在暂停后不被确认和重试。

协商TCP套接字和握手TCP数据包的开销是巨大的。真的很大。没有明显的UDP开销。

最重要的是,您可以轻松地用一些可靠的传输握手来补充UDP,开销比TCP要少。读这个:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable_User_Datagram_Protocol

UDP对于在发布-订阅类型的应用程序中广播信息非常有用。IIRC, TIBCO大量使用UDP来通知状态变化。

任何其他类型的单向“重要事件”或“日志记录”活动都可以用UDP包很好地处理。您希望在不构造整个套接字的情况下发送通知。你不期望从不同的听众那里得到任何回应。

系统“心跳”或“我还活着”消息也是一个不错的选择。错过一个不是危机。(连续)少了半打就是。

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。

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。

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