No, it isn't.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Kelly Miller wrote:

> I managed to figure it out.  nfs-lock doesn't seem to be starting through
> systemd, and I'm not sure why.  I can start it using start manually, but
> when I try to enable it to start on system load, it claims "No file or
> directory".

That sounds like it might this problem:

'rpc-statd won't start for user mounts'
http://marc.info/?t=142314313000002&r=1&w=2

Except that the error message is a bit different..

Is this a user mount?

Ben

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Let's see...
> > The server is CentOS 6.  There's nothing fancy about the setup; rather
> > than running an account sync like NIS or LDAP, I just make sure that both
> > computers have the same users with the same user id's on both computers
> > (it's a home network setup with both computers sitting right next to each
> > other with a switch between them, so I can guarantee that).  I'm using the
> > same fstab options I normally use: hard, intr, rsize=8192, wsize=8192, tcp,
> > nfsvers=3 .  But for whatever reason, I get this message whenever I try to
> > mount the drive.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> >>>>> "KM" == Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix at gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> KM> I just tried to mount my home folders using NFS as I usually do, but
> >> KM> no matter what I get the error mount.nfs: requested NFS version or
> >> KM> transport protocol is not supported.  Did something change in the
> >> KM> Alpha of Fedora 22 to suddenly break NFS mounting?  I've tried a
> >> KM> bunch of mount options, but nothing seems to work.
> >>
> >> I know that a kernel update in Fedora 21 broke kerberized NFS4 export
> >> (on the server) when selinux is enabled, but I'm guessing that's not
> >> your issue.  Perhaps you could provide more details.
> >>
> >>  - J<
> >>
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...