3 ms·
This is right observation but not so right reasoning. Loosing a few pixels or missing some object updates won't be noticable in high fps games, but where corre
by amtamt 3y ago
This is right observation but not so right reasoning.
Loosing a few pixels or missing some object updates won't be noticable in high fps games, but where correctness and completeness of data is needed, UDP based applications end up implementing TCP features in application layer.
These application layer implementations can be more performant (low latency and/or high throughput) with UDP, utilizing the special cases, than TCP, which needs to provide generic facilities to every application running on the same host. And then it becomes a question of available resources vs benefits.
Example:
DNS started as UDP and later used TCP when expectations on correctness grew.
That said, We have high capacity and high quality backbones that UDP looks right choice for many cases, and should be used where it makes sense.
- alfons_foobar 3y agoNit: DNS supports TCP, but most DNS traffic is still over UDP
- kkielhofner 3y agoDNS supports TCP largely because of packet fragmentation issues with UDP. I don't have a lot of experience with it but from what I understand DNS attempts to switch to TCP (with varying degrees of success by implementation) when the size of the response exceeds or is expected to exceed the MTU.
- opless 3y agoDNS Supports TCP due to some responses to requests being > 64Kb Initially for domain transfers, and now for DNSSec etc where you can get rather large certificates embedded. Also it's rather handy if you're tunneling over a proxy that only supports TCP ;)
- alfons_foobar 3y agoYeah. For "regular" DNS (not zone transfers), TCP is mostly used as a fallback.