Question : SQL 2005 Mirroring VS SQL 2005 Clustering

I am investigating strategies for keeping maximum availability of our primary production SQL Server.
We are migrating from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005.
The current server resides on a server cluster with active / passive fail over.

We have had problems with this configuration that have caused the server to become unresponsive, and inconsistent fail-over to the other cluster server.

I am currently looking at SQL 2005 mirroring which advertises almost instantaneous switch over to a second DB Server, VS using the same active / passive server clustering which can take up to several minutes to complete the switch.

I am looking for advice from those who have used these technologies to provide max availability, to see if there are any drawbacks to one approach as opposed to another.

I know that mirroring requres 3 servers (witness server) VS 2 for clustering, but the ultimate goal is next to Zero down time for the end user.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Answer : SQL 2005 Mirroring VS SQL 2005 Clustering

witness server - can be any PC
Cluster - will take off your user's connections
Mirror - will keep the connections on
Cluster - for Hardware failure
Mirror - for DR - and some reporting (via Snapshot on mirror) -> e.g to another location
A\P - need 1 Win and 1 sql server license
Mirror - 2 and 2
--
I used mirror between 2 locations - nothing happened for 6 months (it is good)-> mirror was broken and changed to logshipping ->
in many cases (feedback's) people are very happy

Cluster - is another story -> it is mostly for fault tolerance of Hardware
Let say - cluster is cluster
mirror is mirror