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?
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
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)。
其他回答
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.
视频流是使用UDP的一个很好的例子。
只使用UDP,如果你真的知道你在做什么。UDP在今天是在极其罕见的情况下,但数量(甚至非常有经验)专家谁会试图坚持到处似乎是不成比例。也许他们喜欢自己实现错误处理和连接维护代码。
由于所谓的校验和印记,使用现代网络接口卡,TCP应该会快得多。令人惊讶的是,在快速连接速度下(比如1Gbps),计算校验和对CPU来说是一个很大的负载,所以它被卸载到识别TCP数据包的NIC硬件上,它不会为你提供相同的服务。
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。
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。