Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Once Again on TCP vs UDP

posted by martyb on Sunday March 27 2016, @12:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the could-this-site-run-without-both-of-them? dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Once Again on TCP vs UDP | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 39 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @06:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @06:38PM (#323601)
    Your algorithm + TCP delayed ack is more of a problem than a solution nowadays compared to many decades ago*. Who the heck wants to wait hundreds of milliseconds to send small packets when you have >Mbps connections and GHz processors/ASICs on network devices and hosts.

    * Even not that long ago it seemed more of a stupid hack than a real solution. When your "solution" shows up as a top cause for many TCP performance problems, you should admit you've screwed up.