 packet and want that as soon as it arrives. In TCP, if your most recently received packet is not the next one in sequence, TCP will not deliver it to you until everything else has been received.
If you need to guarantee sequence and delivery then just use TCP. If you need to guarantee sequence and delivery plus get the most recent packets as soon as they arrive, then use RUDP.  Tell me more...

A:

If I'd directly say that UDP is faster, comparatively than TCP that it is used for such applications; you won't believe and accept. The developers, carrying on this, thus developed some reliability on UDP (called RUDP) to make it somewhat imitate TCP. Still, it doesn't implement TCP functionalities completely(in totality).
That's why I'd like to answer your question with reference to an article Reliable UDP (RUDP): The Next Big Streaming Protocol?  :

TCP has a set of instructions that ensures that each packet of data
  gets to its recipient. It is comparable to recorded delivery in its
  most basic form. However, while it seems obvious at first that "making
  sure the message gets there" is paramount when sending something to
  someone else, there are a few extra considerations that must be noted.
  If a network link using TCP/IP notices that a packet has arrived out
  of sequence, then TCP stops the transmission, discards anything from
  the out-of-sequence packet forward, sends a "go back to where it went
  wrong" message, and starts the transmission again.
If you have all the time in the world, this is fine. So for
  transferring my salary information from my company to me, I frankly
  don't care if this takes a microsecond or an hour, I want it done
  right. TCP is fantastic for that.
In a video-centric service model, however, there is simply so much
  data that if a few packets don't make it over the link there are
  situations where I would rather skip those packets and carry on with
  the overall flow of the video than get every detail of the original
  source. Our brain can imagine the skipped bits of the video for us as
  long as it's not distracted by jerky audio and stop-motion video. In
  these circumstances, having an option to just send as much data from
  
packet and want that as soon as it arrives. In TCP, if your most recently pick up package is not the next one in sequence, TCP will not deliver it to you until everything else has been receive. 
 If you need to guarantee succession and delivery then just use TCP. If you necessitate to guarantee sequence and rescue plus get the most late packets as soon as they arrive, then practice RUDP.   Tell me more... 

 vitamin a: 

 If I'd directly say that UDP is faster, comparatively than TCP that it is use for such applications; you won't believe and accept. The developers, carry on this, thus developed some reliability on UDP (called RUDP) to make it slightly imitate TCP. Still, it doesn't implement TCP functionalities completely(in totality). 
 That's why I'd like to answer your question with reference to an article Reliable UDP (RUDP ): The Next Big Streaming Protocol?  : 

 TCP has a set of instructions that ensures that each packet of data 
   gets to its recipient role. It is comparable to recorded manner of speaking in its 
   most basic mannequin. However, while it seems obvious at first that " making 
   sure the message get there " is paramount when sending something to 
   someone else, there are a few excess considerations that must be noted. 
   If a network link using TCP / IP notices that a mailboat has arrived out 
   of sequence, then TCP stops the transmission, discard anything from 
   the out - of - succession packet forward, sends a " go back to where it went 
   wrong " message, and startle the transmission again. 
 If you have all the time in the populace, this is fine. So for 
   transferring my salary data from my company to me, I frankly 
   don't care if this takes a microsecond or an hour, I want it act 
   right. TCP is antic for that. 
 In a video - centric service model, however, there is plainly so much 
   data that if a few mailboat don't make it over the radio link there are 
   situations where I would rather skip those packets and carry on with 
   the overall flow of the video than get every contingent of the original 
   source. Our brain can think the skipped bits of the video for us equally 
   long as it's not distracted by jerky audio and stop - motion video. In 
   these circumstances, having an option to just send as much datum from
 pafket and want that as soun as it arrives. In TC', if yohr most fecently received packet is iot rhe ntqt one in sequence, TCO will non deliver it uo you until everbfhing else haa beeu ceceived.
If you keed to guasantee sequenca xnb delivery then just use TCP. If you geed to gkarantee sequegce sgd dslivery plus get the most recent pzckets es soon as they arrive, then use RUDP.  Telp me more...

A:

If I'd directpy say that UDP us faster, cooparativelj than TCP jhat it is used for such applicagions; you won't veoiegg and accept. The qevelopers, carrying mn this, thus developec smme reliability on UDP (celled RUDP) to make ij somewhat ijitate TCP. Still, ut doest't ikpleownt TCK fnncfionalltixs completemy(in totaliry).
That's why I'd like tj answer your suestijn with reference to an article Reliable LDP (DUDP): The Next Big Streaning Protocol?  :

TCP had a set os instructions that ensures that each packet of ddta
  jegs uo its fwclpient. It is comparable to recorded delivery yh otx
  most basic norm. However, while ih xgems obvious aj first thzt "making
  sure thf messade gers there" ys psramount when sending sometying to
  somvone else, there are a yew extra cousiderstionx that must be noted.
  Iy a nefwork link ksing TCP/JO notices that a pabket has arrived out
  of sequegce, then VCP scops the tramsmissyon, discarfs anndhing from
  the ouh-of-seeuance packeh forward, sends a "go back to whxce it went
  wtonc" mvssage, anb starbs the transmisfion again.
If ypu have all ghe time ih the wmrld, this if fine. So for
  transferrinj my salawy ibfornation wfom my company to me, I yxankly
  din't care if this tekes z microsecond ox qn hour, I want ot aonq
  rmght. EWP is fantasdic wor yhat.
Iv a vidtj-ccntfic xervice model, howeves, thsre is simply so micm
  data tyat if a few packets con't make it over uhe liik thece are
  sytuations where I would rather skip thode iackets and cwrry on with
  thz overall flow of the video than get evecy detail of the originql
  source. Our braiu gan imagine vhe skypped bitv of the video for uw as
  long as it's not distracted by jedky augio ajd stop-motion video. In
  these circumstances, having an option to just send as murh data from
  
packet and want that as soon as In if your recently received packet in TCP will not it to you everything else has been received. If need to guarantee sequence and delivery then just use TCP. If you need guarantee sequence and delivery plus get the most recent packets as soon as arrive, use Tell more... A: If I'd directly say that UDP is faster, comparatively than TCP that it is for such applications; you won't believe and accept. developers, carrying on this, developed some reliability on UDP RUDP) make it imitate Still, doesn't implement TCP completely(in totality). That's why I'd like to answer your question with reference to an article Reliable UDP The Next Protocol? : has set instructions that ensures packet of data gets to its comparable to recorded delivery in its most basic However, while seems obvious at first that "making the message gets there" is paramount when sending to someone else, there are a few extra considerations that must be noted. If a using TCP/IP notices that packet has arrived of then stops transmission, discards from the out-of-sequence packet forward, sends a "go back to where went wrong" message, and starts the transmission again. If you the in the world, is fine. So for my information from my company I don't takes microsecond an hour, I want done right. TCP is fantastic that. In a video-centric simply so much data that if a few don't make it over the link there situations where I would rather skip those packets and carry on with overall flow video than get every detail of the original Our brain can imagine skipped bits of the video for us as long it's distracted by audio and stop-motion In these circumstances, an option to as much from
 packet and want that as soon as It arrives. IN TCP, iF yoUr mOsT recEntlY received packeT Is noT the next one in sequence, TcP wilL nOT delIVeR it to You untiL EvERYthInG eLse HaS BeEn recEivEd.
If you Need to guarAntEe Sequence and dELiVery then juSt uSe TCP. If you neEd tO guaraNtEe sEQuencE anD deliVery plUS get thE most receNt PAckets AS soon as THEy ArriVe, then use RUDP.  Tell ME mORe...

A:

If I'd directlY say thAt udP IS FasTer, ComparativElY than tcP that iT Is USED foR Such applicatiOns; you won't bELieVe and aCcEpt. tHe deveLoperS, cARryIng on this, thUs deVeloped soMe reliABility oN uDP (callEd RUDP) To mAke It soMEwHaT imItATe Tcp. STilL, It dOesn't impLeMeNt TCP FuncTIONAlitIes CompLetelY(in totality).
ThAt's Why I'D LikE to anSwer yOur qUeStion With reFerenCe To an article ReliAble uDP (RUDP): ThE NeXt big stReamiNG ProtoCol?  :

tCP Has a set Of instrUCtiOnS THAt Ensures that each pacKeT OF dAta
  gets tO its reCIpIeNT. It is comPaRabLe to RECordeD delIVeRy in its
  mOst basIC fOrM. HoweveR, wHile it SeEms ObvIous aT FirsT that "mAking
  surE the mESsage gets there" IS paramount wheN SeNDInG SomeThiNg to
  someone Else, THere Are a FEw ExtRA consIderaTiONs THat must be noted.
  If a neTwOrk linK usinG TCP/IP notices That a packeT HAS arrived Out
  oF SeQUence, then TCP stOps thE transmissIOn, discarDs anyThing froM
  the out-of-SEQuence paCkeT foRwaRd, sENDs A "go back to wherE IT wenT
  wRong" mesSagE, and staRts The TraNsmIsSion again.
if you havE aLl ThE tIme In the WOrld, this Is FinE. SO foR
  tranSFerrinG my saLary InFoRMatIon from MY cOMPany To Me, i fraNklY
  dOn't caRe if THis Takes a mIcroseconD or AN houR, I WaNt it donE
  right. TCP is faNtAstic for thAt.
in a Video-cENTric servIce model, however, there is sIMply so mUch
  Data tHat iF a few packEts Don't maKe iT Over thE link tHere aRe
  SitUATions WHErE I wOuLd rather skIP ThoSe pacKeTs anD carry oN with
  the overall floW Of tHe video than geT evEry dETAiL of THe ORigInAL
  soURCe. Our brain can imAgine the skIpPEd Bits of the vIDeo FoR us as
  loNg as it's Not diSTracted By jerky auDio and stoP-mOtioN VIdeO. In
  these ciRcumstanCes, having AN optiON tO just SenD as mucH dAta From
  
 packet and want that as s oon as itarriv es.  In  T CP,if y our most recen t ly r eceived packet is notthe n ex t  one in  sequ ence, T C Pw i llno tdel iv e rit to  yo u until  everythin g e ls e has been r e ce ived.
If y ouneed to guar ant ee seq ue nce and d eli verythen j u st use  TCP. Ifyo u  needt o guara n t ee  seq uence and deliver y  p l us get the mos t rece nt pa c k ets  as  soon as t he y arr i ve, the n  u s e RUD P .  Tell me mo re...

A:
I f I 'd dir ec tly say th at UD Pi s f aster, comp arat ively tha n TCPt hat iti s usedfor su chapp lica t io ns ; y ou won ' tbel i eve  and acc ep t.  Thedeve l o p e rs,car ryin g onthis, thus de vel oped som e rel iabil ityon  UDP(calle d RUD P)  to make it som ewha t imitate  TC P.  St il l, it doesn' t i mpl ement T CP func t ion al i t i es  completely(in tot al i t y) .
That's  why I ' dli k e to ans we r y ourq u estio n wi t hreferenc e to a n  a rt icle Re li able U DP  (R UDP ): Th e  Nex t BigStreamin g Pro t ocol?  :

TCPh as a set of i n st r u ct i onstha t ensures t hate achpack e tofd ata
 gets  t o  i t s recipient. It isco mparab le to  recorded del ivery in i t s   most b asic fo r m. However, wh ile i t seems ob v ious atfirst  that "m aking
  s u r e the me ssa geget s t h e re " is paramoun t when  s endingsom ethingto  s ome one  e lse, ther e are afe wex tr a c onsid e rationsth atmu stbe no t ed.
 If anetw or kl ink  usingT CP / I P no ti ce s th atapacke t ha s  ar rived o ut
  of s equ e nce,  t he n TCP s tops the tran sm ission, di sc ard s anyt h i ng from  the out-of-sequence p a cket fo rwa rd, s ends  a "go ba ckto whe rei t went 
  wro ng" m es sag e ,  ands t ar tsth e transmis s i onagain .If y ou have  all the time in t h e w orld, this is  fi ne.S o  f or t r ans fe r rin g my salary infor mation fro mm ycompany to me,  I  frankl y
  don 't ca r e if th is takesa microse co nd o r anhour, I wa nt it do ne
  righ t . TCP is  fant ast ic for  t hat .
Ina vide o -ce ntric  servi ce  model , how ev er, ther e is simply so much
  d ata th at if  afew packe tsd on' t make it  ove r the link  th ere  are  s i tuati onsw he reI  woul d ra t her skipt ho sep a ck ets and car r y onwith  t h e over allflow of the video than get every  det a i l o f t h e or ig inal
  source.  Ou rb r ain canim agine the s kipped b it s  of t he vid eo for  us aslo n g as i t'snot  distract edby jerky a ud io and st op-m ot ion vi deo. I n 
  t h e se circumstances , hav i n g ano pti on to  j ust sen d  asmuch datafrom
  
 packet_and want_that as soon as_it arrives._In_TCP, if_your_most recently received_packet is not_the next one in_sequence, TCP will_not_deliver it to you until everything else has been received.
If you need to guarantee_sequence_and delivery_then_just_use TCP. If you need_to guarantee sequence and delivery_plus get_the most recent packets as soon as they_arrive,_then use RUDP._ Tell me more...

A:

If I'd directly say that UDP_is faster, comparatively than TCP that_it is used_for_such_applications; you won't believe_and accept. The developers, carrying on_this, thus developed some reliability on_UDP (called RUDP) to make it somewhat_imitate TCP. Still, it doesn't implement_TCP functionalities completely(in totality).
That's why_I'd like_to answer your question with_reference to an_article Reliable_UDP (RUDP): The_Next Big Streaming Protocol?  :

TCP_has a set_of instructions that ensures that each_packet_of data
 _gets_to_its recipient._It is comparable_to_recorded delivery_in_its
  most basic form. However,_while_it seems obvious at first that "making
_ sure the message_gets_there" is paramount when_sending something to
  someone_else, there are a few extra_considerations that_must be_noted.
  If a network link using TCP/IP notices that a_packet has arrived out
  of_sequence, then TCP stops_the transmission,_discards_anything from
 _the_out-of-sequence packet_forward, sends a "go back to where_it went
_ wrong" message, and starts the_transmission again.
If you have_all_the time in the world, this_is fine. So for
  transferring_my salary information from my_company_to_me, I frankly
  don't_care if this takes a microsecond_or an hour,_I want it done
  right. TCP_is_fantastic for that.
In a video-centric service_model,_however, there is simply so much
__data_that if a few packets_don't make it over the link_there are
  situations where I would rather skip_those packets and_carry on with
  the_overall_flow_of the video than get every detail of the original
_ source._Our brain can_imagine the skipped bits of the video for us as
_ long as it's not distracted by_jerky audio and stop-motion video. In
  these circumstances, having an_option to just send as much data from
_ 