Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

What do you use when you need reliable UDP?

If you have a situation where a TCP connection is potentially too slow and a UDP 'connection' is potentially too unreliable what do you use? There are various standard reliable UDP protocols out there, what experiences do you have with them?

Please discuss one protocol per reply and if someone else has already mentioned the one you use then consider voting them up and using a comment to elaborate if required.

I'm interested in the various options here, of which TCP is at one end of the scale and UDP is at the other. Various reliable UDP options are available and each brings some elements of TCP to UDP.

I know that often TCP is the correct choice but having a list of the alternatives is often useful in helping one come to that conclusion. Things like Enet, RUDP, etc that are built on UDP have various pros and cons, have you used them, what are your experiences?

For the avoidance of doubt there is no more information, this is a hypothetical question and one that I hoped would elicit a list of responses that detailed the various options and alternatives available to someone who needs to make a decision.

like image 471
Len Holgate Avatar asked Sep 20 '08 08:09

Len Holgate


People also ask

Can you make UDP 100% reliable?

Theres no 100% reliable method of ensuring your UDP messages are sent and received, however you can use acknowledgment messages to and from in your apps to see if you do get the send and receive message.

Is UDP considered reliable?

UDP is an unreliable, connectionless, fast transport protocol used for sending short messages or messages that do not require acknowledgement of receipt. An easy way to remember the difference is: TCP is Trustworthy; UDP is Unreliable.

In which layer does UDP protocol add reliability?

TCP provides reliability at transport layer while UDP does not. So, UDP is fast. But, a protocol at application layer can implement reliable mechanism while using UDP.


2 Answers

What about SCTP. It's a standard protocol by the IETF (RFC 4960)

It has chunking capability which could help for speed.

Update: a comparison between TCP and SCTP shows that the performances are comparable unless two interfaces can be used.

Update: a nice introductory article.

like image 66
philant Avatar answered Oct 02 '22 05:10

philant


It's difficult to answer this question without some additional information on the domain of the problem. For example, what volume of data are you using? How often? What is the nature of the data? (eg. is it unique, one off data? Or is it a stream of sample data? etc.) What platform are you developing for? (eg. desktop/server/embedded) To determine what you mean by "too slow", what network medium are you using?

But in (very!) general terms I think you're going to have to try really hard to beat tcp for speed, unless you can make some hard assumptions about the data that you're trying to send.

For example, if the data that you're trying to send is such that you can tolerate the loss of a single packet (eg. regularly sampled data where the sampling rate is many times higher than the bandwidth of the signal) then you can probably sacrifice some reliability of transmission by ensuring that you can detect data corruption (eg. through the use of a good crc)

But if you cannot tolerate the loss of a single packet, then you're going to have to start introducing the types of techniques for reliability that tcp already has. And, without putting in a reasonable amount of work, you may find that you're starting to build those elements into a user-space solution with all of the inherent speed issues to go with it.

like image 43
Andrew Edgecombe Avatar answered Oct 02 '22 05:10

Andrew Edgecombe