This article explores two popular technologies for abstracting physical hardware: virtualization and containerization. We will provide a general overview of each and also discuss the differences between virtualization and containerization.
The core component of this technology is the virtual machine (VM). A VM is an isolated software environment that emulates the hardware of a specific platform. In other words, a VM is an abstraction that allows a single physical server to be transformed into multiple virtual ones.
Creating a VM makes sense when you need to manage all operating system kernel settings. This avoids kernel conflicts with hardware, supports more features than a specific OS build might provide, and allows you to optimize and install systems with a modified kernel.
Containers work differently: to install and run a container platform, a pre-installed operating system kernel is required (this can also be on a virtual OS). The OS allocates system resources for the containers that provide a fully configured environment for deploying applications.
Like virtual machines, containers can be easily moved between servers and provide a certain level of isolation. However, to deploy them successfully, it’s sufficient for the base kernel (e.g., Linux, Windows, or macOS) to match — the specific OS version doesn’t matter. Thus, containers serve as a bridge between the system kernel layer and the application layer.
Some, especially IT beginners, often frame it as "virtualization vs containerization." But these technologies shouldn't be pitted against each other — they actually complement one another. Let’s examine how they differ and where they overlap by looking at how both technologies perform specific functions.
Virtualization makes it possible to fully isolate a VM from the rest of the server, including other VMs. Therefore, VMs are useful when you need to separate your applications from others located on the same servers or within the same cluster. VMs also increase the level of network security.
Containerization provides a certain level of isolation, too, but containers are not as robust when it comes to boundary security compared to VMs. However, solutions exist that allow individual containers to be isolated within VMs — one such solution is Hyper-V.
A VM is essentially a full-fledged OS with its own kernel, which is convenient but imposes high demands on hardware resources (RAM, storage, CPU).
Containerization uses only a small fraction of system resources, especially with adapted containers. When forming images in a hypervisor, the minimal necessary software environment is created to ensure the container runs on an OS with a particular kernel. Thus, containerization is much more resource-efficient.
With virtualization, you have to download and install OS updates on each VM. To install a new OS version, you need to update the VM — in some cases, even create a new one. This consumes a significant amount of time, especially when many virtual machines are deployed.
With containers, the situation is similar. First, you modify a file (called a Dockerfile) that contains information about the image. You change the lines that specify the OS version. Then the image is rebuilt and pushed to a registry. But that’s not all: the image must then be redeployed. To do this, you use orchestrators — platforms for managing and scaling containers. Orchestration tools (the most well-known are Kubernetes and Docker Swarm) allow automation of these procedures, but developers must install and learn them first.
To deploy a single VM, Windows (or Linux) tools will suffice, as will the previously mentioned Hyper-V. But if you have two or more VMs, it’s more convenient to use solutions like PowerShell.
Single containers are deployed from images via a hypervisor (such as Docker), but for mass deployment, orchestration platforms are essential. So in terms of deployment mechanisms, virtualization and containerization are similar: different tools are used depending on how many entities are being deployed.
With virtualization, VHDs are used when organizing local storage for a single VM. If there are multiple VMs or servers, the SMB protocol is used for shared file access.
Hypervisors for containers have their own storage tools. For example, Docker has a local Registry repository that lets you create private storage and track image versions. There is also the public Docker Hub repository, which is used for integration with GitHub. Orchestration platforms offer similar tools: for instance, Kubernetes can set up file storage using Azure’s infrastructure.
To balance the load between VMs, they are moved between servers or even clusters, selecting the one with the best fault tolerance.
Containers are balanced differently. They can’t be moved per se, but orchestrators provide automatic starting or stopping of individual containers or whole groups. This enables flexible load distribution between cluster nodes.
Faults are also handled in similar ways. If an individual VM fails, it’s not difficult to transfer that VM to another server and restart the OS there.
If there’s an issue with the server hosting the containerization platform, containers can be quickly recreated on another server using the orchestrator.
Advantages:
Reliable isolation. Logical VM isolation means failures in one VM don’t affect the others on the same server. VMs also offer a good level of network security: if one VM is compromised, its isolation prevents infection of others.
Resource optimization. Several VMs can be deployed on one server, saving on purchasing additional hardware. This also facilitates the creation of clusters in data centers.
Flexibility and load balancing. VMs are easily transferred, making it simpler to boost cluster performance and maintain systems. VMs can also be copied and restored from backups. Furthermore, different VMs can run different OSs, and the kernel can be any type — Linux, Windows, or macOS — all on the same server.
Disadvantages:
Resource consumption. VMs can be several gigabytes in size and consume significant CPU power. There are also limits on how many VMs can run on a single server.
Sluggishness. Deployment time depends on how "heavy" the VM is. More importantly, VMs are not well-suited to scaling. Using VMs for short-term computing tasks is usually not worthwhile.
Licensing issues. Although licensing is less relevant for Russian developers, you still need to consider OS and software licensing costs when deploying VMs — and these can add up significantly in a large infrastructure.
Advantages:
Minimal resource use. Since all containers share the same OS kernel, much less hardware is needed than with virtual machines. This means you can create far more containers on the same system.
Performance. Small image sizes mean containers are deployed and destroyed much faster than virtual machines. This makes containers ideal for developers handling short-term tasks and dynamic scaling.
Immutable images. Unlike virtual machines, container images are immutable. This allows the launch of any number of identical containers, simplifying testing. Updating containers is also easy — a new image with updated contents is created on the container platform.
Disadvantages:
Compatibility issues. Containers created in one hypervisor (like Docker) may not work elsewhere. Problems also arise with orchestrators: for example, Docker Swarm may not work properly with OpenShift, unlike Kubernetes. Developers need to carefully choose their tools.
Limited lifecycle. While persistent container storage is possible, special tools (like Docker Data Volumes) are required. Otherwise, once a container is deleted, all its data disappears. You must plan ahead for data backup.
Application size. Containers are designed for microservices and app components. Heavy containers, such as full-featured enterprise software, can cause deployment and performance issues.
Having explored the features of virtualization and containerization, we can draw a logical conclusion: each technology is suited to different tasks.
Containers are fast and efficient, use minimal hardware resources, and are ideal for developers working with microservices architecture and application components.
Virtual machines are full-fledged OS environments, suitable for secure corporate software deployment.
Therefore, these technologies do not compete — they complement each other.