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This discussion has been archived.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, @08:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:56PM (#323640)

    You can build reliability on top of UDP, but it's a lot of work to get it right. Obviously, that's what they signed up to do, unless they're using a third party protocol library.

    There's the risk of starting on the path of re-inventing TCP to deal with all the pitfalls the original TCP developers ran into over 20-25 years. For example, flow control; what if the master node (the one dispatching the requests) runs short of message buffer space? TCP has a solution for that, UDP doesn't.