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.

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。

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。

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。

请参阅Steven的Unix网络编程的22.4节，“何时使用UDP而不是TCP”。

另外，请参阅关于UDP总是比TCP更快的误解的其他SO回答。

史蒂文的话可以总结如下:

使用UDP广播和组播，因为这是你唯一的选择(任何新的应用程序使用组播) 你可以在简单的请求/回复应用中使用UDP，但你需要构建自己的ack、超时和重传 不要使用UDP进行批量数据传输。

在某些情况下，保证数据包的到达并不重要，因此使用UDP是可以的。在其他情况下，UDP比TCP更可取。

你想要使用UDP而不是TCP的一个独特情况是你在另一个协议(例如隧道，虚拟网络等)上建立TCP隧道。如果您在TCP上建立隧道，则每个TCP的拥塞控制将相互干扰。因此，人们通常更喜欢在UDP(或其他无状态协议)上传输TCP。参见TechRepublic文章:理解TCP Over TCP: TCP隧道对端到端吞吐量和延迟的影响。