关于这个问题，我所知道的最好的答案之一来自Hacker News的用户zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC。这个答案太好了，我就原原本本地引用它吧。

TCP has head-of-queue blocking, as it guarantees complete and in-order delivery, so when a packet gets lost in transit, it has to wait for a retransmit of the missing packet, whereas UDP delivers packets to the application as they arrive, including duplicates and without any guarantee that a packet arrives at all or which order they arrive (it really is essentially IP with port numbers and an (optional) payload checksum added), but that is fine for telephony, for example, where it usually simply doesn't matter when a few milliseconds of audio are missing, but delay is very annoying, so you don't bother with retransmits, you just drop any duplicates, sort reordered packets into the right order for a few hundred milliseconds of jitter buffer, and if packets don't show up in time or at all, they are simply skipped, possible interpolated where supported by the codec. Also, a major part of TCP is flow control, to make sure you get as much througput as possible, but without overloading the network (which is kinda redundant, as an overloaded network will drop your packets, which means you'd have to do retransmits, which hurts throughput), UDP doesn't have any of that - which makes sense for applications like telephony, as telephony with a given codec needs a certain amount of bandwidth, you can not "slow it down", and additional bandwidth also doesn't make the call go faster. In addition to realtime/low latency applications, UDP makes sense for really small transactions, such as DNS lookups, simply because it doesn't have the TCP connection establishment and teardown overhead, both in terms of latency and in terms of bandwidth use. If your request is smaller than a typical MTU and the repsonse probably is, too, you can be done in one roundtrip, with no need to keep any state at the server, and flow control als ordering and all that probably isn't particularly useful for such uses either. And then, you can use UDP to build your own TCP replacements, of course, but it's probably not a good idea without some deep understanding of network dynamics, modern TCP algorithms are pretty sophisticated. Also, I guess it should be mentioned that there is more than UDP and TCP, such as SCTP and DCCP. The only problem currently is that the (IPv4) internet is full of NAT gateways which make it impossible to use protocols other than UDP and TCP in end-user applications.

这并不总是明确的。然而，如果您需要保证数据包以正确的顺序无丢失地传递，那么TCP可能是您想要的。

另一方面，UDP适用于传输信息的短数据包，其中信息的顺序不太重要，或者数据可以放入单个数据包中 包。

当您希望向许多用户广播相同的信息时，这种方法也很合适。

其他时候，当您正在发送序列数据时，它是合适的，但如果有些数据丢失了 错过你不太关心的(例如VOIP应用程序)。

有些协议更复杂，因为需要的是TCP的一些(但不是全部)功能，但比UDP提供的功能更多。这就是应用层必须做到的 实现附加功能。在这些情况下，UDP也是合适的(例如，互联网广播，顺序很重要，但不是每个数据包都需要通过)。

它在哪里/可以被使用的例子 1)时间服务器向局域网上的一堆机器广播正确的时间。 2) VOIP协议 3) DNS查找 4)请求局域网服务，例如:where are you? 5)网络电台 还有许多其他的……

在unix上，您可以输入grep udp /etc/services以获得实现的udp协议列表 今天……有几百个。

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。

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。

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。