From: Ellen K. 

It's included with the Enterprise version of the OS, so the extra cost
would be for Enterprise over Standard.  Ditto for SS2K, although the 2005
version supposed supports failover clustering in the new version that's
between Enterprise and Standard.  But I still don't think it addresses all
the requirements.  It's starting to seem like the gold standard would be
COMBINING clustering and replication.  That's gotta run big bucks though by
the time you cluster in both locations AND replicate from one to the other.
 I'm not sure how much budget we have, also gotta discuss this further with
my boss.  So far he's indicated that he would be willing to compromise on
the amount of time it would take to get running in the alternate location,
up to four hours. Personally I'd rather see it be seamless, or as close to
seamless as possible.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:44:58 GMT, John Beckett
 wrote in message
:

>Ellen K.  wrote in message
>news::
>> Well, after a little more reading, I don't think clustering is going to
>> be my answer.
>
>This is outside my league, but bear in mind that the licensing fees can be
>pretty high for quality clustering software. Try and get a cost estimate
>before spending a lot of effort on the technical side.
>
>John

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