From: Rich Gauszka 

Richard B. wrote:
> Anyone doing this?  What is your product of choice and why?
>
> I'm going to start digging into it a bit more aggressively in a few
> weeks, mainly looking at comparing Virtuozzo with VMware and MS
> Virtual Server.  Gotta get some test hardware from somewhere.
>
> - Richard

I would think that VMware and MS VS are closer to each other than
Virtuozzo. I do know someone that was attempting the VMware solution ( he
had some pretty good ideas ) but he lost out in some IT infighting with a
group that feared the loss of overtime 

http://www.webhostingtalk.com.au/showthread.php?t=3980

Virtuozzo is specifically targeting the hosting market. For this reason it
is more essential that someone is able to maximise the host servers
resources rather than provide for all the additional extras commonly
associated with a standard PC (eg. shared USB buses, shared & dedicated
ethernet devices etc).

VMWare on the other hand is on the opposite end of the scale. It provides
the ability to determine which virtual machines have access to what
resources including (but not limited to) ethernet, usb & telephony
devices. It guarantees the virtual machine IS a machine in it's own right.

To this effect it's even possible to deploy your own BIOS subsystem or
setup a null modem link between 2 virtual (or 1 virtual & real through
a shared serial device) machines.

It really depends what your trying to do. Virtuozzo means you'll be able to
dynamically share resources between machines (even overselling processor
& memory if you so wish) at the expense of not appearing to be a real
machine (ie. you couldn't start playing with the /dev filesystem freely).
VMWare means you can create virtual hardware devices and "tweak"
them via /dev at the expense of not being able to dynamically share
resources (ie. if you allocate 1GB of RAM to one virtual machine, it's
committed and won't be shared by the real machine or another sibling
virtual machine).

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5