这是我最喜欢的问题之一。UDP被误解了。

当你真的想快速地向另一个服务器得到一个简单的答案时，UDP是最好的选择。通常，您希望答案在一个响应包中，并准备实现自己的协议以提高可靠性或重新发送。DNS是这个用例的完美描述。连接设置的成本太高了(然而，DNS 不支持TCP模式以及)。

另一种情况是，当您交付的数据可能会丢失，因为新的数据将取代之前的数据/状态。天气数据、视频流、股票报价服务(不用于实际交易)或游戏数据浮现在脑海中。

另一种情况是，当您正在管理大量的状态时，您希望避免使用TCP，因为操作系统无法处理那么多会话。这在今天是一个罕见的案例。事实上，现在可以使用用户专用的TCP堆栈，以便应用程序编写人员可以对该TCP状态所需的资源进行更细粒度的控制。在2003年之前，UDP是唯一的游戏。

另一种情况是多播流量。UDP可以多播到多个主机，而TCP根本不能这样做。

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。

UDP can be used when an app cares more about "real-time" data instead of exact data replication. For example, VOIP can use UDP and the app will worry about re-ordering packets, but in the end VOIP doesn't need every single packet, but more importantly needs a continuous flow of many of them. Maybe you here a "glitch" in the voice quality, but the main purpose is that you get the message and not that it is recreated perfectly on the other side. UDP is also used in situations where the expense of creating a connection and syncing with TCP outweighs the payload. DNS queries are a perfect example. One packet out, one packet back, per query. If using TCP this would be much more intensive. If you dont' get the DNS response back, you just retry.

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。

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。