SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Sunday March 27 2016, @12:27PM
from the could-this-site-run-without-both-of-them? dept.
from the could-this-site-run-without-both-of-them? dept.
Discussion on the advantages of TCP vs UDP (and vice versa) has a history which is almost as long as the eternal Linux-vs-Windows debate. As I have long been a supporter of the point of view that both UDP and TCP have their own niches (see, for example, [NoBugs15]), here are my two cents on this subject.
Note for those who already know the basics of IP and TCP: please skip to the 'Closing the Gap: Improving TCP Interactivity' section, as you still may be able to find a thing or two of interest.
It's a primer, or a refresher, or a skip. We have all kinds here. Enjoy, or don't.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognize terrorism if it
came up and bit him on his Internet."
-- Ross M. Greenberg
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pvanhoof on Sunday March 27 2016, @01:26PM
Improving interactivity in TCP/IP protocols is usually done with pipelining to make the protocol less chatty. I scanned the guy's two cents, but his article apparently doesn't even mention this?
I agree that most client developers still ASK, WAIT, RECEIVE, ASK, WAIT, RECEIVE while they can do 01 ASK\n02 ASK\n 03 ASK to get 01 ANSWER\n02 ANSWER\n 03 ANSWER. Feel free to sniff most E-mail clients's traffic pattern.
Is that maybe because HTTP, where everything is tunneled over nowadays, sucks at pipelining? Have people forgotten?