There are a lot of questions you need to ask the client before you make a suggestion like this... especially if you are not a hardware guru. I don't know that I as a consultant/developer would even make a suggestion for this type of setup without bringing in several MCSE's and asking them their opinions. This is not something you want to do quickly without a reasonable amount of research.

You need to get a LOT more information from the client;
What is acceptable downtime in the event of hardware failure?
What staffing will be available to administer these machines? If they don't have at least a couple of well trained SQL Server DBA's, this entire deal would be in question.
Etc, etc.



>Wayne
>
>Thanks for your input. I was thinking that you could use the clustering for both, performance and failover. That really is more of a question. Our client is looking for our hardware recommendation for this and not the cost issue. I just tallied up 900 TS-CAL and they were about 62K...that's a lot. I can't imagine 900 simitatious users, but there specs were 30 facilities with 30 users each.
>
>With the sql server portion I was under the impression (I may very well be wrong here) that you can cluster SQL 2000 machines to provide automatic fail-over.
>
>Kirk