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

比较TCP和UDP,像UDP这样的无连接协议可以保证速度,但不能保证数据包传输的可靠性。 例如,电子游戏通常不需要可靠的网络,但速度是最重要的,在游戏中使用UDP具有减少网络延迟的优势。

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。

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.

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

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。