关于这个问题，我所知道的最好的答案之一来自Hacker News的用户zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC。这个答案太好了，我就原原本本地引用它吧。

TCP has head-of-queue blocking, as it guarantees complete and in-order delivery, so when a packet gets lost in transit, it has to wait for a retransmit of the missing packet, whereas UDP delivers packets to the application as they arrive, including duplicates and without any guarantee that a packet arrives at all or which order they arrive (it really is essentially IP with port numbers and an (optional) payload checksum added), but that is fine for telephony, for example, where it usually simply doesn't matter when a few milliseconds of audio are missing, but delay is very annoying, so you don't bother with retransmits, you just drop any duplicates, sort reordered packets into the right order for a few hundred milliseconds of jitter buffer, and if packets don't show up in time or at all, they are simply skipped, possible interpolated where supported by the codec. Also, a major part of TCP is flow control, to make sure you get as much througput as possible, but without overloading the network (which is kinda redundant, as an overloaded network will drop your packets, which means you'd have to do retransmits, which hurts throughput), UDP doesn't have any of that - which makes sense for applications like telephony, as telephony with a given codec needs a certain amount of bandwidth, you can not "slow it down", and additional bandwidth also doesn't make the call go faster. In addition to realtime/low latency applications, UDP makes sense for really small transactions, such as DNS lookups, simply because it doesn't have the TCP connection establishment and teardown overhead, both in terms of latency and in terms of bandwidth use. If your request is smaller than a typical MTU and the repsonse probably is, too, you can be done in one roundtrip, with no need to keep any state at the server, and flow control als ordering and all that probably isn't particularly useful for such uses either. And then, you can use UDP to build your own TCP replacements, of course, but it's probably not a good idea without some deep understanding of network dynamics, modern TCP algorithms are pretty sophisticated. Also, I guess it should be mentioned that there is more than UDP and TCP, such as SCTP and DCCP. The only problem currently is that the (IPv4) internet is full of NAT gateways which make it impossible to use protocols other than UDP and TCP in end-user applications.

We have web service that has thousands of winforms client in as many PCs. The PCs have no connection with DB backend, all access is via the web service. So we decided to develop a central logging server that listens on a UDP port and all the clients sends an xml error log packet (using log4net UDP appender) that gets dumped to a DB table upon received. Since we don't really care if a few error logs are missed and with thousands of client it is fast with a dedicated logging service not loading the main web service.

电子游戏的网络通信几乎都是通过UDP完成的。

速度是最重要的，如果错过更新也无关紧要，因为每次更新都包含玩家所能看到的完整当前状态。

这是我最喜欢的问题之一。UDP被误解了。

当你真的想快速地向另一个服务器得到一个简单的答案时，UDP是最好的选择。通常，您希望答案在一个响应包中，并准备实现自己的协议以提高可靠性或重新发送。DNS是这个用例的完美描述。连接设置的成本太高了(然而，DNS 不支持TCP模式以及)。

另一种情况是，当您交付的数据可能会丢失，因为新的数据将取代之前的数据/状态。天气数据、视频流、股票报价服务(不用于实际交易)或游戏数据浮现在脑海中。

另一种情况是，当您正在管理大量的状态时，您希望避免使用TCP，因为操作系统无法处理那么多会话。这在今天是一个罕见的案例。事实上，现在可以使用用户专用的TCP堆栈，以便应用程序编写人员可以对该TCP状态所需的资源进行更细粒度的控制。在2003年之前，UDP是唯一的游戏。

另一种情况是多播流量。UDP可以多播到多个主机，而TCP根本不能这样做。

当TCP可以工作时，我有点不情愿建议使用UDP。问题是，如果TCP由于某种原因不能工作，因为连接太延迟或拥塞，将应用程序更改为使用UDP不太可能有帮助。一个坏的连接对UDP也不好。TCP在减少拥塞方面已经做得很好了。

我能想到的唯一需要UDP的情况是广播协议。在应用程序涉及两个已知主机的情况下，UDP可能只会提供边际的性能优势，而代码复杂性的成本则会大幅增加。

如果TCP数据包丢失，将重新发送。这对于依赖于以特定顺序实时处理数据的应用程序来说并不方便。

例如视频流，特别是VoIP(例如Skype)。然而，在这些情况下，一个掉落的包并不是什么大问题:我们的感官并不完美，所以我们甚至可能不会注意到。这就是为什么这些类型的应用程序使用UDP而不是TCP。