4 ms·
I haven't read the article yet but I think that means that UDP was used less than TCP and so routers/operating systems didn't optimize for it as much as they di
by subtra3t 3y ago
I haven't read the article yet but I think that means that UDP was used less than TCP and so routers/operating systems didn't optimize for it as much as they did for TCP. Hope this helps.
- IgorPartola 3y agoRight that’s all it says on this subject. I am curious about what optimizations TCP has benefitted from that we’re not but could be applied to UDP.
- jsnell 3y agoFor example various kinds of hardware TCP offload, like: 1. Handing the NIC a single blob of data (> MSS) in a single operation, and having the NIC do the segmentation into multiple packets. 2. Having the NIC detect multiple exactly consecutive TCP packets on the same flow, and merging them to a single receive operation. Hardware offload is impossible to do for UDP, since neither the NIC or OS can assume anything about the payload semantics.
- chasd00 3y agothere's nothing to optimize with UDP, you put a datagram on the wire and off it goes. There's no sequence number like in TCP to re-order and construct a stream on the receiving side. There is no stream, it's UDP. You put a datagram on the wire and that's it. There no syn/ack either so no congestion control in routers, no back-off or anything.