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)

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

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。

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。

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。

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)。