HowToFixMe
Hardware Failure

Arista 7010T POST failure on startup: Diagnose & Fix

By Sai Kiran Pandrala · reviewed by Sai Kiran Pandrala, Editor Last verified: 2026-05-30

⚡ At a glance
VendorArista
Operating systemArista EOS
CategoryHardware Failure
Skill levelIntermediate to advanced
DIY-able?Yes with CLI access; some scenarios need Arista TAC + RMA.

A Arista platform behaving badly is usually one of three things: a thermal/PSU issue caught by `show environment all`, a transceiver problem caught by `show interfaces Ethernet1 detail`, or a boot-loader hang you only see on the console. Arista EOS surfaces all three differently from competitors, so the diagnostic order matters.

I will be honest, on the 7010T family I have seen at least one false-positive from the on-box monitoring per quarter. Always cross-check what `show version` and `show environment all` reports against the physical front-panel and a smell test of the chassis.

If this is your first Arista hardware issue, the good news is that Arista TAC is competent and the part-replacement RMA cycle is usually under a week for a covered unit.

What this guide covers

Real-world context. Cost envelope: ~Rs 0 INR under Arista A-Care, otherwise ~Rs 10,000 to Rs 1,50,000 INR for replacement units (around $120 to $1,800 USD). Time at the keyboard: ~20 to 60 minutes triage. Time end-to-end including verification: ~1 to 4 hours including a failback test. Have the switch serial, a startup-config backup, and console access staged before the first command so you do not stall on missing inputs.

Diagnose and recover from POST failure on startup on a Arista 7010T.

The repair

  1. Note the exact POST failure code from the console.
  2. Look up the code in the vendor hardware install guide.
  3. Common: memory test fail (RMA RAM / motherboard), FPGA fail (RMA mainboard).
  4. Open a Arista TAC case with the POST log and the device serial.

CLI / commands

# Verify hardware state
show version
show inventory
show environment all

# Collect for Arista TAC
show tech-support | redirect file:show-tech.log

When to RMA

Frequently asked questions

Will this work on my specific Arista EOS version?

The procedure reflects current Arista EOS behaviour. Older releases may need minor syntax adjustments. use the CLI help (? or tab-completion) to verify.

Should I open a Arista TAC case immediately?

Open one if you suspect hardware failure or the symptom persists after a maintenance-window reload. Make sure your support entitlement is active first.

Where can I find the Arista official documentation?

https://www.arista.com/en/support/toi, search the product family + feature name.

Is this procedure safe in production?

Test in a lab or maintenance window first. Capture pre-change state so you can roll back.

References

Reference material, not professional advice. Validate against your specific Arista EOS version and test in a non-production environment before applying.

What changed recently?

Fault diagnosis on a Arista device goes faster when you map the symptom to a recent change:

The answer narrows the root cause to a manageable subset.

Safety + preconditions

Before any work on a Arista device:

Verification checks

Before you walk away from a Arista device fix, run through:

1. Reproduce the original trigger, does the issue reappear? 2. Check the device's status / health screen for any new alerts. 3. Confirm paired devices (app, hub, controller) reconnected. 4. Save / commit any configuration changes per the device's normal workflow. 5. Note the change in your maintenance log with date + firmware version.

Escalation guide

For a Arista device, the right escalation depends on impact:

More frequently asked questions

How often should I run preventive checks?

Quarterly for most consumer devices; monthly for production / commercial devices. Set a calendar reminder so the device stays healthy between issues.

Will this void my warranty?

Applying official firmware updates and following the user manual will not affect warranty. Opening sealed components, jumping safety circuits, or using third-party parts can void warranty in most jurisdictions.

Should I update firmware first or last?

Update firmware first if a release note specifically mentions your symptom. Otherwise, finish the troubleshooting flow first, then update; that way you can isolate whether the update or the underlying fix solved it.

Will the procedure work on the international variant?

Some features and firmware paths are region-locked. Check the model spec sheet to confirm your variant supports the menu option referenced. If you're outside the US/EU, look for the regional support portal.

Why is this happening on a brand-new unit?

Out-of-box defects do occur. If you've owned the device under 30 days and the symptom persists after a factory reset, escalate to the seller for replacement under DOA terms before opening a manufacturer support case.

Field notes from real incidents on Arista

When I work on Arista 7010T POST failure on startup: Diagnose & Fix the rhythm I lean on is the one I have built over years of these tickets, not a stack of generic advice. CloudVision Portal alerts are noisy unless you tune them; I disable the defaults and re-enable the ones that map to actual production events. Arista EOS lets you reload a module without reloading the chassis on most platforms. I use that capability more than people realise.

Show tech-support detail is the artifact Arista TAC expects on call one; bundle it with the agent logs before you open the ticket. EOS-API (eAPI) over HTTPS is the cleanest way to script Arista at scale; do not wrap CLI screen-scraping when eAPI returns JSON.

Tools I actually reach for

For Arista 7010T POST failure on startup: Diagnose & Fix on Arista the cheapest signal I can land usually comes from a known order of operations, not a kitchen-sink approach. I start with show platform hardware capacity because it is the lowest-friction way to confirm the failure is real and reproducible. If that returns ambiguous data, I escalate to packet capture on the ingress interface (TAC will ask for it), ping vrf <vrf> <target>, and finally to show logging last 200 only when the cheaper tools cannot reach the layer the failure lives in. That ordering matches the failure surfaces I have actually seen on Arista units over the last few years, not an abstract taxonomy. The cheap signals gate the expensive ones so the investigation does not balloon into a multi-hour exercise.

Verification I run before I close the ticket

Before I mark Arista 7010T POST failure on startup: Diagnose & Fix resolved on a Arista unit, the verification loop below is what I actually run. Each step proves a different layer is green, and the order matters - the cheap checks gate the more expensive ones so I never burn an hour on a deep test that a shallow one would have failed in seconds.

show ip route <prefix>  # confirm best path post-change

If that one comes back clean, move to the next check. If it does not, stop and dig in there before layering more verification on top of a red signal.

show interfaces <int> | include errors|drops|CRC

If that one comes back clean, move to the next check. If it does not, stop and dig in there before layering more verification on top of a red signal.

show logging | include %LINK|%LINEPROTO|%BGP|%OSPF

Only when every line above runs clean do I close the ticket and update the runbook with the timestamps. A green verification that nobody can reproduce is not a fix, it is luck waiting to regress.

Where I check first when the docs disagree

When two sources contradict each other on a Arista detail, the disambiguation order I lean on is stable across products and across years. github.com/aristanetworks for open-source tooling like Ansible roles is where I start for the ground-truth view. eos.arista.com for the official software documentation is where I start for the ground-truth view. Arista TAC knowledge base is where I start for the ground-truth view. Random blog posts and reseller wikis are signal, not ground truth, and I treat them as such until the references above either confirm or contradict the claim. The cost of trusting an unauthoritative source on Arista 7010T POST failure on startup: Diagnose & Fix is rarely worth the time it saved.

Pitfalls I have walked into on this exact path

The shortcuts that look smart on Arista 7010T POST failure on startup: Diagnose & Fix have a habit of biting back. The pitfalls below are the ones I have personally walked into on a Arista unit, not things I read about. EOS-API (eAPI) over HTTPS is the cleanest way to script Arista at scale; do not wrap CLI screen-scraping when eAPI returns JSON. Arista EOS lets you reload a module without reloading the chassis on most platforms, I use that capability more than people realise. CloudVision Portal alerts are noisy unless you tune them; I disable the defaults and re-enable the ones that map to actual production events. When in doubt I revert to the slower path that the manual prescribes - the time I save by skipping it is always smaller than the time I spend cleaning up afterwards.

What I tell the next on-call

When I hand Arista 7010T POST failure on startup: Diagnose & Fix off to the next person on rotation, the three lines I leave in the runbook are these. First, the symptom signature on Arista - not a paraphrase, the exact string that surfaces in logs or on the screen. Second, the diagnostic that gave the highest signal in the least time. Third, the exact verification command whose green output justified closing the ticket. That trio is what turns a one-off fix into a runbook entry the next engineer can use without paging me at three in the morning.

I also add a one-line note on the cost of getting this wrong. For Arista 7010T POST failure on startup: Diagnose & Fix on a Arista unit, the cost is rarely the replacement part or the patch itself. It is the downtime, the second site visit, and the trust deficit you spend with whoever owns the asset when the fix does not hold. That framing keeps the next on-call from choosing the cheap-looking shortcut that ends up costing the most in elapsed hours and goodwill.

Related guides worth a look while you sort this one out:

People also ask

Will this work on my specific Arista EOS version?

The procedure reflects current Arista EOS behaviour. Older releases may need minor syntax adjustments: use the CLI help (`?` or tab-completion) to verify.

Should I open a Arista TAC case immediately?

Open one if you suspect hardware failure or the symptom persists after a maintenance-window reload. Make sure your support entitlement is active first.

Where can I find the Arista official documentation?

https://www.arista.com/en/support/toi, search the product family + feature name.

Is this procedure safe in production?

Test in a lab or maintenance window first. Capture pre-change state so you can roll back.